Leave without pay is not a disciplinary penalty and does not bar dismissal for unauthorized absence.

The petitioner, a Rajasthan Police Constable, was charged under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, with remaining absent from assigned sentry duty without sanctioned leave from 8 to 18 March 2002.

The charge-sheet also referred to 51 earlier instances of absence.

Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service on 24 February 2003 and treated the ten-day period as leave without pay; the appellate authority dismissed his appeal on 30 June 2003.

The petitioner challenged both orders, alleging procedural unfairness, failure to consider his explanation that his mother was seriously ill, improper reliance on past absences, double jeopardy, non-speaking orders and disproportionate punishment.

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry complied with Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules and afforded the petitioner an effective opportunity to defend himself.

2. Whether the appellate authority properly considered the petitioner’s grounds of appeal and whether the orders were non-speaking or mechanical.

3. Whether the petitioner’s explanation concerning his mother’s illness was substantiated and required the disciplinary orders to be set aside.

4. Whether consideration of the 51 earlier instances of absence amounted to double jeopardy or otherwise invalidated the penalty.

5. Whether the penalty of dismissal warranted interference under Article 226, including on proportionality grounds.

Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules governs major-penalty inquiries, including communication of definite charges, an opportunity to submit a defence, and consideration of the inquiry report; under Rule 16(11A), a separate opportunity to make representations on the proposed penalty is not required.

Under Article 226, a reviewing court does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence; interference may be warranted for an error of law, no evidence, perversity, or a material procedural or natural-justice violation, but not merely because evidence is said to be insufficient.

Rule 14 enumerates the penalties available under the Rules; leave without pay is not itself a disciplinary penalty.

State of U.P. v. Madhav Prasad Sharma, (2011) 2 SCC 212, was relied on for the propositions that leave without pay is not a prescribed penalty and that the double-jeopardy objection does not arise where only one disciplinary penalty is imposed.

The Court also referred to State of Punjab v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh, 2025 Supreme (SC) 1283, concerning consideration of past conduct in assessing punishment, and to the principle that punishment is not ordinarily disturbed absent gross or shocking disproportionality.

The Court found that the petitioner had received the charge-sheet and an opportunity to submit a written defence, was represented during the inquiry, could cross-examine departmental witnesses and lead defence evidence, and received the inquiry report with an opportunity to respond.

He sought additional time but ultimately filed no further representation; the Court therefore found no material denial of opportunity or prejudice under Rule 16.

It read the appellate order as showing consideration of the inquiry record, appeal grounds and principal defence, notwithstanding the absence of a paragraph-by-paragraph response.

The medical explanation was rejected as unsubstantiated because no contemporaneous medical or other supporting evidence was produced.

The Court held that the current penalty rested on the separately charged absence in March 2002, not on the 51 earlier instances; reference to past conduct did not amount to punishing the petitioner again for those instances.

It also held that leave without pay was not a second penalty under Rule 14.

Finding no established procedural defect or other ground for judicial interference, the Court declined to disturb the disciplinary authorities’ decision.

It dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending application.