Treatment-related unauthorized absence from disciplined forces warrants proportionate punishment instead of disproportionate removal from service.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable/GD in the CISF at Patna in 2017.

While undergoing training in Bhilai, he was granted 7 days of leave from 18.10.2018.

Due to a serious spinal ailment requiring treatment at Darbhanga Medical College Hospital (DMCH), Bihar, he sought extensions but ultimately remained absent for 137 days.

A departmental enquiry found him guilty of unauthorized absence, leading to his removal from service, which was upheld in appeal and revision.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the Patna High Court, while the Union of India raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, as the proceedings occurred in Odisha and Chhattisgarh.

1. Whether the Patna High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition when the disciplinary proceedings and orders took place outside Bihar.

2. Whether the punishment of removal from service for 137 days of unauthorized absence is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

The court applied Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows a High Court to issue writs if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territories.

It relied on Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India regarding the "integral facts" of cause of action and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

It further cited Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, which established that communication of rejection to a native place where a person is forced to stay due to disability can constitute a part of the cause of action.

On the merit of punishment, the court applied the principle of proportionality as seen in Yasodhar Kamat v. DG, BSF.

The court applied the Division Bench ruling in Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Tiwary v. Union of India, which held that absence due to compelling circumstances should not result in dismissal.

On jurisdiction, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was initially appointed in Patna, fell ill in Bihar, underwent treatment at DMCH, and made all correspondences explaining his medical condition from his native place, a fraction of the cause of action arose within Bihar.

On merits, the court noted that the petitioner did not "abandon" duty but failed to report due to a documented spinal ailment.

While unauthorized absence in a disciplined force is serious, the court found that the petitioner had submitted medical prescriptions and representations for extensions.

Applying the test of proportionality, the court held that the penalty of removal "shocks the conscience of the Court" as the absence was not willful but due to medical necessity, and the petitioner had joined duty immediately upon recovery.

It set aside the orders of removal, appeal, and revision.

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within two months but ruled he is not entitled to back wages for the period out of service, though the period is to be counted notionally for benefits.

The unauthorized absence is to be treated as leave to his credit while allowing the authorities to impose a minor penalty or warning.