Dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence in disciplined forces is not disproportionate despite domestic or personal difficulties.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the 47th Battalion of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on July 30, 2011

After several transfers, he was posted to the Recruit Training Centre, Alwar

The Petitioner was sanctioned five days of casual leave from April 11, 2019, to April 16, 2019, but failed to resume duty upon its expiry

Although the Petitioner claimed to have applied for a 45-day extension via ordinary post, no such record was found by the Respondents

Despite receiving multiple notices (dated April 20, May 6, and May 21, 2019) and the issuance of an apprehension roll following a Court of Inquiry, the Petitioner remained absent

He was declared a "deserter" on July 22, 2019

Following two Show Cause Notices (SCNs), including one published in the newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on September 12, 2019

His subsequent appeal and mercy petitions were rejected

The Petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing domestic and matrimonial difficulties as the cause for his absence

1. Whether the unauthorized absence of a member of a disciplined force can be justified by personal or domestic difficulties

2. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of prolonged unauthorized absence

3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned orders suffered from procedural illegality or violation of the principles of natural justice

The court primarily applied Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the SSB Rules, 2009, which empowers the authority to dismiss a personnel for misconduct

It further relied on the constitutional principles governing judicial review under Article 226, establishing that interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only in cases of procedural illegality, perversity, or violation of natural justice

Additionally, the court applied the settled legal principle that in a "disciplined force," unauthorized absence is a grave misconduct that must be viewed with utmost seriousness

The court observed that the Petitioner did not dispute the factum of his absence starting from April 17, 2019

It rejected the Petitioner's defense that matrimonial disputes and financial constraints justified his conduct, ruling that such personal issues do not permit a member of a disciplined force to remain absent without authorization for a prolonged period

The court noted that the Respondents had followed due process by issuing three separate communications, conducting a Court of Inquiry, issuing an apprehension roll, and publishing a Show Cause Notice in a newspaper to afford the Petitioner every opportunity to resume duty

Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the court held that since the Petitioner failed to respond to statutory notices and remained continuously absent, the dismissal was not "shockingly disproportionate"

The court emphasized its limited scope of judicial review, noting that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural infirmity in the inquiry or the decision-making process

The court found no procedural illegality or violation of natural justice in the Impugned Orders dated September 12, 2019, and May 6, 2020

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, affirming the Petitioner's dismissal from service