Unauthorized absence does not constitute misconduct absent proof that it was wilful.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector posted in the District Police Force, Ashoknagar, took two days’ casual leave from 25 April 2016 but did not resume duty after 27 April 2016 because of illness.

He rejoined on 20 August 2016 after obtaining medical fitness certification and produced sickness, leave-extension, and fitness certificates.

A charge-sheet dated 26 September 2016 alleged unauthorised absence from 28 April to 20 August 2016.

During the departmental inquiry, the petitioner submitted medical documents, but the Enquiry Officer allegedly failed to consider them.

The High Court found that the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and was later obtained under the RTI Act.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect by order dated 25 February 2017.

The departmental appeal and mercy petition were subsequently rejected through non-speaking orders.

Whether absence from duty due to illness and other compelling medical circumstances, without prior leave approval, could be treated as wilful misconduct warranting disciplinary punishment.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority violated the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner’s medical documents and by passing non-speaking and unreasoned orders.

Whether the punishment order, appellate order, and mercy petition order were liable to be quashed and consequential benefits granted to the petitioner.

The Court applied the principle in Krushna Kant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178, that unauthorised absence does not automatically constitute misconduct; the disciplinary authority must determine whether the absence was wilful, and absence caused by compelling circumstances such as illness, accident, or hospitalisation cannot ordinarily be treated as failure of devotion to duty

The Court also relied on Police Regulation 178 read with Fundamental Rule 81(b)(ii), concerning leave on medical certification

It further applied the settled requirement that quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must pass reasoned and speaking orders disclosing consideration of the relevant facts and submissions.

This principle was supported by State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724, Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427

The Court also held, relying on Oryx Fisheries, that deficiencies in the original order cannot be cured merely by reasons supplied in an appellate order

The Court noted that the petitioner had produced medical certificates showing illness, including jaundice/liver-related problems, and a fitness certificate permitting him to resume duty. These documents were not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authorities

Although the absence may have been unauthorised in the administrative sense, the authorities failed to determine whether it was wilful or caused by compelling medical circumstances, as required by Krushna Kant B. Parmar

The Disciplinary Authority merely stated that the petitioner had failed to provide material disproving the charges and imposed punishment without addressing the medical evidence or the petitioner’s explanation

The Appellate Authority similarly dismissed the appeal through a mechanical, non-speaking order without considering the grounds raised in appeal

The failure to supply the inquiry report and the failure to provide reasons demonstrated non-application of mind and violation of procedural fairness

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner all consequential benefits within three months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment

Since the medical certificates established that the absence was attributable to jaundice and other compelling medical circumstances, the Court expressly declined to grant the respondents liberty to initiate further action against the petitioner on the basis of that absence