Unauthorized absence from a disciplined force is a grave misconduct warranting removal from service.

The applicant, Harvinder Singh, was enrolled as a Constable in 1984.

He was removed from service on April 8, 1993, by the Superintendent of Police due to unauthorized absence.

The applicant challenged this removal in SWP No. 601 of 1999, where the High Court, vide judgment dated July 13, 2001, set aside the removal, directing reinstatement and an inquiry into how the intervening period of absence should be treated.

This judgment was upheld by the Double Bench in LPA/SW No. 269/2002 on December 16, 2013.

Following the High Court's order, the applicant was reinstated on January 6, 2015, and a fresh departmental inquiry was initiated.

The inquiry officer concluded that the applicant failed to justify his unauthorized absence of 61 days from APTC Kathua, from February 6, 1993, until his removal from service, without valid documentary proof.

A show cause notice for removal from service was issued to the applicant on March 6, 2019, to which he replied on March 18, 2019, producing a medical certificate for the period of absence.

The respondents contended that the medical certificate was an undated, plain paper certificate from an "incompetent medical officer" and that the applicant's absence was unjustified, especially given his prior history of 280 days of unauthorized absence.

The Additional Director General of Police, respondent no. 3, subsequently passed Order No. 268 of 2019 dated May 9, 2019, removing the applicant from government services with immediate effect.

This order was challenged by the applicant, leading to the present transferred application.

1. Whether the impugned order dated May 9, 2019, removing the applicant from government services was passed in violation of the High Court's direction in SWP No. 601 of 1999 and the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the Medical Certificate produced by the applicant was a valid justification for his unauthorized absence from APTC Kathua.

3. Whether the punishment of removal from service awarded to the applicant was disproportionate to the misconduct proven against him.

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual, which outlines the procedure for conducting departmental inquiries.

It also considered the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 601 of 1999.

The Tribunal cited the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP vs Ashok Kumar Singh [1996 (2) SCT 139] regarding the gravity of unauthorized absence in disciplined forces and the scope of judicial interference in proportionality of punishment.

The Tribunal analyzed the record of the inquiry and found that the respondents had meticulously adhered to Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual, thereby satisfying the due process requirements.

A charge sheet was served on the applicant, he filed a reply with medical certificates, and a show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment was issued and considered before the final order.

The High Court's order in SWP No. 601 of 1999 allowed for an inquiry into the intervening period of absence, and the subsequent inquiry was conducted in compliance with this.

The Tribunal found that the medical certificate produced by the applicant was insufficient to justify his absence, as it was undated, on a plain paper, from an unnamed and allegedly "incompetent medical officer," and did not indicate a severe condition preventing communication with authorities.

The applicant's failure to inform his superiors or obtain permission, despite his native place being close to the training center, further undermined his claim.

Additionally, the applicant's claim of not receiving notices was disproven by record, which showed multiple attempts by the police to communicate with him.

Citing State of UP vs Ashok Kumar Singh, the Tribunal underscored that unauthorized absence, especially in a disciplined force like the police, is a grave act of misconduct and that the High Court had erred in modifying such punishment in that precedent.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive past record of 280 days of unauthorized absence on different occasions, concluding that leniency would be detrimental to discipline.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary authority's action was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, given the importance of discipline in the police force.

It found that the medical certificate provided by the applicant was not a valid justification for his unauthorized absence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the punishment of removal from service was not disproportionate to the charge established against the applicant.

Accordingly, the Transferred Application was dismissed.