Prolonged unauthorized absence and habitual indiscipline in uniformed services warrant dismissal without attracting double jeopardy.

The appellant, a police constable, was dismissed from service on March 29, 2004, following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of unauthorized absence for 197 days.

The appellant claimed his absence was due to illness following a physical assault in 2000.

He further contended that an earlier communication by the Superintendent of Police dated November 2, 2002, allowing him to resume duties with a reference to "censure/admonition," precluded further disciplinary action.

After his departmental appeal and mercy petition were rejected, he challenged the dismissal in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on June 18, 2025.

The present matter is an intra-court appeal against that dismissal.

1. Whether the communication dated November 2, 2002, constituted a formal punishment, thereby rendering the subsequent dismissal order a violation of the principle of double jeopardy.

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate given the appellant's medical history and length of service.

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that High Courts should not act as appellate authorities over departmental findings unless they are perverse or lack evidence.

The Court relied on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Union of India v. Subrata Nath to define the limited scope of interference in disciplinary matters.

Regarding the conduct of uniformed forces, the Court emphasized that maintenance of discipline and regular attendance are foundational requirements, as established in Central Industrial Security Force v. Abrar Ali.

The Court determined that the communication dated November 2, 2002, was merely administrative permission to rejoin duty and not a disciplinary order, as it was not preceded by a charge-sheet or inquiry; thus, double jeopardy did not apply.

On the merits, the Court found that the appellant had a chronic history of indiscipline, including 19 prior instances of leave without pay and a previous absence of 338 days.

It reasoned that the production of medical documents did not excuse a consistent pattern of unauthorized absence.

The Court concluded that since the appellant was a member of a disciplined force, the penalty of dismissal was justified by his repeated misconduct and overall service record.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order and dismissed the writ appeal, maintaining the appellant's dismissal from service.