Dismissal is a Proportionate Penalty for Unauthorised Absence in Uniformed Forces to Maintain Strict Discipline

The petitioner, a Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police, was transferred from Police Station Mainpur to Police Station Devbhog on 10.07.2017

He failed to join the new post and remained unauthorizedly absent for 434 days

Despite service of multiple show-cause notices and articles of charge by a special messenger, the petitioner failed to participate in the departmental inquiry and was proceeded against ex-parte

The Inquiry Officer found the charges of dereliction of duty and indiscipline proved

Consequently, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service on 27.02.2019, which was upheld by both the appellate and revisional authorities

The petitioner challenged these orders on grounds of excessive penalty and lack of natural justice

1. Whether the penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence of 434 days was disproportionate or excessive so as to warrant judicial interference under Article 226

2. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court applied Rule 221(A) of the Police Regulation regarding penalties for misconduct

It relied on State of Punjab v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh (2025), which held that habitual absenteeism constitutes gross violation of discipline in armed forces, and past conduct may be considered to reinforce the gravity of the penalty

It followed Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), establishing that the High Court under Article 226 cannot act as a court of appeal or re-appreciate evidence unless the conclusion is arbitrary or based on no evidence

Finally, it cited Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad (2005), affirming that interference is only permissible if the authority was incompetent or the procedure was not followed

The Court observed that the petitioner was afforded multiple opportunities to participate in the inquiry (notices sent on seven different dates), yet he chose to remain absent

The Court found no procedural irregularity or lack of competence in the disciplinary authority’s actions

Regarding proportionality, the court reasoned that a member of a uniformed/armed force cannot be permitted to remain absent on frivolous pleas, as such indiscipline compromises the morale and discipline of the force

The court emphasized that judicial review is limited to the legality of the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, and since legal evidence supported the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the court refused to re-examine the medical pleas of the petitioner’s father which were raised post-facto

The High Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any procedural illegality or violation of natural justice, as he voluntarily stayed away from the inquiry

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of