Punishment of Dismissal for Unauthorized Absence After Twenty Years of Service is Disproportionate and Requires Reconsideration.

The applicant, a Constable in the Delhi Police since 1991, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence totaling 639 days across nine occasions between 2007 and 2010

The Inquiry Officer (I.O.) held the charges "proved," noting the applicant’s history of 85 previous absences and branding him an "incorrigible" habitual absentee

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the applicant from service on 20.04.2012, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority

This is the second round of litigation; the matter was remanded to the Tribunal by the Hon’ble High Court for fresh consideration because the previous dismissal order was unreasoned

The applicant contended that his absences were due to medical ailments (e.g., burn injuries, hepatitis, sciatica) supported by medical certificates, which the respondents claimed were produced as an afterthought and lacked verification

1. Whether the administration can reject medical certificates issued by registered practitioners without seeking a second medical opinion under statutory rules

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service after 20 years of qualifying service is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of unauthorized absence

The court primarily applied Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which entitles non-gazetted employees to submit medical certificates from Registered Medical Practitioners.

Under Rule 19(3), the competent authority has the discretion to seek a second medical opinion from a Government Medical Officer if they doubt the certificate's genuineness.

The court also relied on the principle of Proportionality in Punishment, referencing Ex. H.C. Rajender Singh v. Union of India Ors., which holds that dismissal leading to forfeiture of earned pensionary benefits after long service (e.g., 20+ years) is unduly harsh and disproportionate for unauthorized absence.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a significant record of absence, he had provided medical certificates from Government hospitals for those periods.

Relying on Sh. Sohan Lal v. Union of India, the Tribunal reasoned that administrative authorities are not medical experts; if the respondents doubted the authenticity of the medical documents or the lack of OPD slips, they were legally obligated under Rule 19(3) to obtain a second medical opinion rather than summarily dismissing the evidence.

Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal noted the applicant had served for over 20 years and thus acquired a vested right to pension.

Following the High Court’s logic in Rajender Singh, the Tribunal determined that while the misconduct (unauthorized absence/habitual absenteeism) justified removal from the force, the specific penalty of "dismissal" was too severe because it extinguished the applicant's entire life's earnings and pensionary security.

It held that the punishment was disproportionate given the length of service and the procedural failure to verify medical claims.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the matter and impose a lesser penalty, such as compulsory retirement, which would preserve the applicant's entitlement to pensionary benefits while addressing the misconduct.