Punishment of Police Constable for Unauthorized Absence Must Adhere to Principles of Proportionality and Stated Police Regulations.

The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in the District Force, Ashoknagar, on June 8, 2014

Between July 29, 2016, and September 14, 2016, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a total of 48 days, allegedly to prepare for a Sub-Inspector recruitment examination

A departmental enquiry was initiated, and the Enquiry Officer found the charges of carelessness and insubordination—violating Clause 64(2) and (4) of the Police Regulation—proved

Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Ashoknagar, inflicted a major penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect

The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed by the DIG, Gwalior Range

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court, primarily contesting the proportionality of the punishment

1. Whether the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct (48 days of unauthorized absence) under the M.P. Police Regulations

2. Whether the disciplinary authority followed the spirit of Regulation 226, which mandates a graded and moderate approach to punishing lower-ranked officials like Constables

The Court primarily applied Regulation 64(2) and (4) of the M.P. Police Regulations regarding the general conditions of service and discipline

It heavily relied on Regulation 226 of the same Regulations, which stipulates that punishment must be determined according to the "offence" and specifies that for Constables, increments should generally not be withheld for more than one year and should avoid long-term adverse effects on pension

The Court followed the precedent in Ganesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. (2013), establishing that harsh punishment is a "last resort" and requires suitable calibration

It also referenced Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) regarding the necessity of reasoned orders in appeals

The Court observed that while the petitioner’s 48-day absence constituted indiscipline in a uniformed force, the punishment of withholding an increment with cumulative effect constitutes a "Major Penalty" because it adversely impacts the petitioner's future pay fixation and pensionary benefits

Applying Regulation 226, the Court noted that the regulations mandate a "graded" approach to punishment, particularly for those at the bottom of the hierarchy, and advise against routine infliction of harsh penalties

The Court found that the petitioner’s motive—to appear for a promotional exam—while not justifying absence, should have been considered when striking a balance between the act and the penalty

Furthermore, the Court noted that a department circular regarding absences of 60 days or more reflects a general policy that shorter absences may not always warrant the most severe departmental responses

Thus, the disciplinary authority failed to calibrate the punishment in the moderate manner prescribed by the statutory regulations

The High Court partly allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders dated August 29, 2017, November 13, 2017, and February 2, 2018. The matter was remanded to the respondents to reconsider the case and inflict an appropriate, moderate punishment in accordance with the spirit of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations