Removal for habitual unauthorized absence in a disciplined force is not shockingly disproportionate, precluding judicial interference.

The petitioner, a Constable posted at a police camp in a sensitive naxalite-affected area, remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 213 consecutive days (from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019)

He claimed the absence was due to family bereavement, his own ill health, and his wife’s pregnancy, but he failed to intimate his superiors during this period

A departmental enquiry was initiated under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, where the petitioner was served a charge-sheet and provided opportunities to defend himself

The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved, leading the Disciplinary Authority to order his removal from service on 04.10.2019

The petitioner’s service record revealed a history of "habitual absence," including five minor and two major penalties previously imposed for similar misconduct

The Appellate Authority and the Director General of Police (in a mercy petition) subsequently affirmed the removal

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory procedure

2. Whether the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct

3. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, can reappreciate evidence or substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority

The court primarily applied Rule 24 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, which stipulates that willful absence from duty renders a government servant liable to disciplinary action

It relied on State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, establishing that the High Court is not an appellate authority over departmental inquiries and is only concerned with the decision-making process

The court further cited Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which prohibits the reappreciation of evidence under Article 226 unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence

Regarding proportionality, the court followed State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, holding that interference with the quantum of punishment is only permissible if it "shocks the conscience" of the court

The court found that the departmental inquiry strictly adhered to procedural safeguards under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution

The record demonstrated that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and given ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead defense evidence, which he largely failed to utilize

The court rejected the petitioner's defense of "compelling circumstances," noting he provided no contemporaneous intimation or supporting medical documentation during the inquiry

Crucially, the court emphasized that in a disciplined force deployed in a naxalite-affected area, 213 days of unauthorized absence is a grave misconduct that undermines institutional integrity

By connecting the law to the facts, the court determined that the petitioner’s "habitual" nature of absence justified the disciplinary authority’s conclusion that he was unfit for retention in service

The Court held that it cannot act as a court of appeal to reassess findings of fact supported by "some evidence"

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of removal dated 04.10.2019, the appellate order dated 30.09.2020, and the rejection of the mercy petition dated 29.09.2021