Habitual unauthorized absence from a disciplined force warrants dismissal where past opportunities for reform were ignored.

The petitioner, appointed as a Police Constable in 1997, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty for 98 days (24.07.2010 to 29.10.2010)

The petitioner claimed the absence was due to jaundice and family illness, supported by medical slips submitted upon his return

A preliminary enquiry followed by a departmental enquiry was conducted; however, the petitioner failed to appear despite seven different notices

The enquiry concluded ex-parte, finding the charges proved. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the petitioner on 20.03.2012

A subsequent mercy petition was rejected by the Inspector General of Police on 05.09.2013

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, alleging a lack of opportunity for hearing and failure to consider his 14-year service record

The respondents highlighted the petitioner's history as a habitual offender, having 14 minor and 2 major penalties, including a prior termination for unauthorized absence that was previously commuted to a lesser penalty

1. Whether the departmental enquiry and subsequent dismissal order were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte nature of the proceedings

2. Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence, considering the petitioner's past service record and medical explanations

The Court primarily applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which restricts the High Court from acting as an appellate authority or reappreciating evidence unless there is a manifest miscarriage of justice or procedural illegality

Govt. of A.P. and others v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373: established that the High Court’s jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors of law or procedural errors and not adjudication on merits by re-evaluating evidence

The Court observed that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself, as evidenced by the issuance of seven distinct notices between November and December 2011, all of which he ignored. Therefore, the plea of violation of natural justice was unsustainable.

Regarding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court noted that the disciplinary authority properly considered the petitioner’s "past conduct," which revealed a habitual pattern of unauthorized absence (6 occasions totaling 459 days) despite prior leniency.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was a member of a "disciplined force," his repeated misconduct maligned the image of the police department.

Applying the Mohd. Nasrullah Khan doctrine, the Court refused to substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authority, finding no perversity in the enquiry report or the decision-making process.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the orders of dismissal and the rejection of the mercy petition were upheld.

The High Court maintained that it cannot act as an appellate body to reappreciate evidence in departmental proceedings.