Repeated unauthorized absence by police personnel constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal despite subsequent joining.

The appellant, appointed as a Constable on 15 September 2014 and posted at Rakshit Kendra, Mandla, remained absent from duty from 19 March 2016 to 29 July 2016 and again from 6 August 2016 to 26 December 2016, allegedly because of his and his minor daughter’s illnesses.

Although he submitted medical certificates and was permitted to rejoin duty through Rojnamcha Entries Nos. 1002 and 1048, he was subsequently charge-sheeted on 7 March 2017 for unauthorised absence for 274 days and for tampering with a medical certificate, allegedly in violation of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The departmental enquiry found both charges proved, resulting in his dismissal from service on 28 August 2017. His departmental appeal and further appeal before the Director General of Police were dismissed.

The learned Single Judge dismissed his challenge to the dismissal and appellate orders by order dated 7 January 2026 in W.P. No. 18540/2024. The present intra-court appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Whether the appellant’s absence had been condoned or regularised when he was permitted to resume duty, thereby precluding subsequent disciplinary proceedings on the same allegations.

Whether unauthorised absence, in the absence of a specific finding that it was wilful or intentional, constituted misconduct in the circumstances of the case.

Whether the departmental findings suffered from perversity, violation of natural justice, or want of supporting evidence warranting interference in judicial review.

Whether dismissal from service was disproportionate to the established misconduct, particularly in view of the appellant’s medical and family circumstances.

Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 was invoked in relation to the alleged unauthorised absence.

The Court applied the principle that judicial review of departmental disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining the legality of the enquiry, observance of natural justice, and whether the findings are supported by some legal evidence; the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence.

Under State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469, disciplinary action may be precluded where the employer consciously regularises the absence by sanctioning leave or otherwise condoning the misconduct; mere permission to rejoin duty does not necessarily amount to regularisation.

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCR 482, recognises that absence does not automatically constitute misconduct unless the relevant circumstances, including wilfulness, are considered.

The Court also relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749; Chairman & Managing Director, VSP v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakar Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569; Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620; and General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 233, concerning the restricted scope of judicial review and proportionality in disciplinary matters.

The Court held that the appellant failed to establish any order consciously regularising or condoning his absence. His being permitted to resume duty after submitting explanations and medical documents did not, by itself, amount to sanction of leave or waiver of the misconduct, particularly as he again remained absent thereafter; consequently, Dr. P.L. Singla was distinguishable.

The absence was not an isolated lapse but consisted of prolonged and repeated periods totalling 274 days. The appellant also failed to satisfactorily establish before the Enquiry Officer that the absence was entirely beyond his control and did not effectively participate in the enquiry despite repeated notices.

The Enquiry Officer considered departmental witnesses and documentary evidence, and the findings were affirmed by the disciplinary, appellate, and higher departmental authorities. No breach of natural justice, statutory violation, absence of evidence, or perversity was shown.

Given that the appellant served in the Police Department, where discipline, devotion to duty, and continuous availability are essential, the Court found that dismissal for repeated unauthorised absence was not so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court.

The writ appeal was dismissed, and the learned Single Judge’s order dated 7 January 2026 in W.P. No. 18540/2024, upholding the dismissal and the departmental orders, was affirmed.