Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6065 of 2015 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Kanhu Charan Behera …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: : For Petitioner(s) Mr. B.K. Mohanty, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-14.08.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, through this Writ Petition, seeks to challenge the punishment order of removal from service dated 30.06.2014, issued by the Commandant of the 183 Battalion, CRPF, Pulwama, as well as the order dated 27.11.2014 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Srinagar (South), which dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Petitioner contests the order dated 13.02.2015, issued by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Srinagar, acting as the Revisional Authority that dismissed the Revision Petition. Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief fact of the case is that: (i) The Petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a combatant/soldier on 21.01.2006, in Battalion No. 183, having completed the requisite training under the command of the Commandant, CRPF, Jalandhar, Punjab. Upon enrollment as Constable (General Duty) under service number 065045229, the Petitioner was posted under the authority of the Commandant, B/183 Battalion, CRPF,
Legal Reasoning
at Pulwama, Srinagar (South), Jammu & Kashmir, and continued to serve until the issuance of an order by Opposite Party No. 5. (ii) While serving as a Constable (General Duty) in the 183 Battalion, CRPF, Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir, the Petitioner applied for earned leave for a period of 30 days, effective from 30.01.2013 to 28.02.2013. The leave was duly sanctioned by the Officer Commanding, B/183 Battalion, CRPF. Upon the expiration of the sanctioned leave, the Petitioner was required to report back for duty at the Transit Camp, CRPF, Jammu, on 28.02.2013. (iii) However, the Petitioner failed to report for duty as required and overstayed his sanctioned leave without obtaining the necessary authorization or permission from the competent authority. The Officer Commanding, B/183 Battalion, CRPF, via letter No. L.II-1/2002-13-B/183 dated 15.03.2013, and a subsequent reminder dated 04.04.2013, directed the Petitioner to resume his duties immediately. Despite these directives, the Petitioner neither returned to duty nor communicated with the department regarding his absence. Consequently, the Officer Page 2 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 Commanding, B/183 Battalion, CRPF, filed a complaint regarding the Petitioner’s disappearance before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant, 183 Battalion, CRPF. (iv) Based on this complaint, a warrant of arrest was issued against the Petitioner, and it was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, District Kandhamal, Odisha, for execution. Additionally, a Court of Inquiry was convened, and the Petitioner was declared a “Deserter from the Force” with effect from 01.03.2013, as per Office Order No. 1.X- 43/2013-EC-II, dated 25.08.2013. (v) On 13.11.2013, through letter No. G-D4/2013, the Petitioner was directed to appear before the inquiry officer by 29.11.2013. The letter further indicated that failure to appear would result in the commencement of an ex-parte departmental inquiry. However, the said letter was returned with the remark “absent/” and it was ultimately received by the inquiry officer on 03.12.2013. (vi) During the period of notice for department inquiry (i.e before 29.11.2013) the Petitioner was arrested by local police on 24.11.2013 by the order of warrant for arrest. (vii) The Petitioner claims that he was unable to return to duty due to contracting malaria and other illnesses, which allegedly led to his hospitalization. He further asserts that while attempting to return to his post, his condition deteriorated, causing him to lose consciousness and go missing for several days. According to the Petitioner, after receiving official notice of his absence, his father reported him missing to the Sub- Collector of Baliguda and the Inspector-in-Charge of Tumudibandha. Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (viii) The Petitioner also claims that a local resident found him severely ill with cerebral malaria and returned him to his family, after which he was treated at the Sub-Divisional Hospital in Baliguda from 10.08.2013 to 12.10.2013, and advised to take rest for an additional 15 days. During this time, the Petitioner states that he informed office writer Rajesh Dogra of B/183 Battalion, CRPF, Pulwama, about his condition. He further alleges that he received a notice of departmental inquiry and requested additional leave for treatment. Further, at this juncture, a cyclone in his area further delayed his return to duty. (ix) Due to non-reporting of the petitioner on his duty and non- apprehension of individual by civil police, the charges were framed against him and memorandum of charges was sent to him at his home address by registered post dated 28.09.2013. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was detailed vide Office Order dated 22.10.2013 to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. In course of inquiry the inquiring officer sent a set of questionnaires to the petitioner at his home address. (x) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was apprehended by the Civil police and handed over to 8th Battalion, CRPF on 24.11.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner was brought to 183 Battalion, CRPF on 01.12.2013 under proper escort. Thereafter, the departmental enquiry was finalised and the petitioner was found to be guilty of overstaying 269 days without any authority or without any permission of any authority. And on the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority having agreed with the inquiry officer, awarded punishment Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 of removal from service with effect from 30.06.2014 after noon vide order dated 30.06.2014. (xi) The petitioner being aggrieved by the said punishment preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Srinagar (South). The appellate authority considering all pros and cons of the case rejected the appeal vide order dated 27.11.2014 being devoid of any merit. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Srinagar challenging both the order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and by the appellate authority. The revisional authority having made a thorough and in depth study of the inquiry report and findings of the inquiring officer as well as evidences available on record alongwith the order of the appellate authority reached to a conclusion that the departmental enquiry has been conducted as per procedure and the ample opportunities were given to the petitioner during departmental Inquiry to submit the documents, adduce evidences and examine the witnesses in his defence. (xii) The Commandant/Opp. party No-2 passed an order for removal from services on 30.06.2014 with effect from afternoon under section 11(1) of C.R.P.F Act 1949. (xiii) Aggrieved by the order of commandant dated 30.06.2014, the Petitioner filed appeal before appellate authority under Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, challenging the order dated 30.06.2014 and the appellate authority without considering the statute provided Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 under section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act i.e. for Minor Punishment rejected an appeal. Confirming the order passed by the Commandant. (xiv) Being aggrieved the order dated 27.11.2014, the Petitioner preferred to file a revision petition before revision authority challenging the rejection of appeal order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Dy. Inspector General, J&K, which is in violation of the fundamental principles of rules and judicial procedures. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The appellant/revision authorities have not considered the statute provided for Minor punishment, under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F Act, 1949, while rejecting appeal/revision dated 27.11.2014 &12.02.2015 are not only illegal also bad in the eye of law, needs to be set- aside. (ii) The inquiry officer and the commandant while passing the order, they should have considered statute provided for the punishment under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F Act, 1949, which is unsustainable in law. (iii) For that, the authority and Inquiry officer have not considered, the information given to the Company writer Mr. Dogra regarding the difficulties of petitioner, Which is not only arbitrary also illegal, needs to be quashed (iv) Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F Act 1949 “MINOR PUNISHMENT” :- says that The Commandant or any authority or Officer as may be prescribed,may subject to any rules made under this Act award in lieu of or in addition Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 to suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience neglect of duty or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say:- a) Reduction in rank; b) Fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowances; c) Confinement to quarters, lines or camps for a term not exceeding one month; d) Confinement to quarter-guard for not more than 28 days with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; e) Removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force; and f) Further seized all medals and decoration and forfeiture all dues under section 12(1). (v) The Revisional Authority without considering the provisions of the statute provided under section 11(1) of C.R.P.F Act i.e. for Minor Punishment, rejected revision petition confirming the order passed by the appellate authority & Commandant. (vi) The order dated 12.02.2015 passed by Revisional Authority which is contrary to law, against the weight of evidence and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record which warrants it to set aside. Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES : 4. (i) In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner applied for earned leave for personal reasons, including his marriage, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the Officer Commanding. (ii) As per the photocopies of medical documents submitted by the petitioner during the course of the inquiry, he was suffering from malaria and jaundice and was admitted to the Community Health Center (C.H.C.), Tumudi Bandh, from 23.02.2013 to 02.03.2013. He was subsequently advised by the doctor to take seven days rest from 02.03.2013 to 08.03.2013, which was further extended by two weeks, from 08.03.2013 to 23.03.2013. Upon completion of medical rest, he was declared fit to resume duty. Despite this, instead of returning to duty, the petitioner, as per photocopies of the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer at P.H.C., Tumudi Bandh, Kandhamal, was once again under treatment from 26.03.2013 to 02.04.2013 and was advised for 14 days of rest from 03.04.2013 to 16.04.2013, which was further extended for five more days until 20.04.2013. He was, subsequently, declared fit to resume duty on 20.04.2013. (iii) However, the petitioner overstayed his leave from 21.04.2013 to 23.11.2013 and failed to produce any medical documentation for this period, except for the date 26.09.2013. During the course of the inquiry, the petitioner stated before the Inquiry Officer that he suffered from mental illness and traveled to Allahabad, where a civilian found him Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 and contacted his father using the information in his purse. The petitioner’s family subsequently brought him back to Cuttack. The petitioner’s claim was that he was rescued by a local person is wholly inaccurate. Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the Sarpanch of Tumudi Bandh, Kandhamal, dated 10.12.2013, claiming that his native place was affected by a natural calamity/cyclone. However, the certificate lacked the date of the calamity and the restoration of normalcy in the area. Additionally, no medical documentation was provided to support the petitioner’s claim of mental illness or details of his treatment for the same, raising doubts about the truthfulness of his claims. (iv) To ensure the petitioner had ample opportunity to defend himself, the Inquiry Officer issued several notices for him to appear. Despite these efforts, the petitioner did not appear, and in some instances, the notices were returned with the postal remark "absent." This pattern of behavior indicates that the petitioner deliberately avoided the inquiry proceedings for reasons known only to him. The petitioner is therefore required to provide strict proof of his claims. (v) After the petitioner was apprehended by the civil police, he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant, 183 Battalion, CRPF, on 02.12.2013 at 0900 hours, whereupon the warrant of arrest issued against him was immediately cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner resumed his normal duties until his removal from service. Throughout the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was afforded reasonable and ample opportunities to defend his case and present Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 documentary evidence to justify his 269 days of unauthorized absence. Despite this, he failed to provide sufficient justification for his prolonged overstay. (vi) Section 7 of the CRPF Act mandates that every member of the Force must promptly obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued by any competent authority. The CRPF, being an Armed Force of the Union of India, has a crucial role in the protection and security of the nation. In such an organization, indiscipline by any member is highly detrimental to national security, particularly given the heightened terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, where the petitioner was posted prior to his removal from service for defying orders of his superior authority. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. I have heard the representations of the counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the materials placed on record. First of all, it is trite in law that the power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,1 the Supreme Court also held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is 1 (1995) 6 SCC 749 Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. xxx xxx xxx 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the the penalty disciplinary/appellate authority imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” either to reconsider (Emphasis supplied) directing relief, the 8. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by an employee of the state, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. 9. In Om Kumar & Others vs. Union of India,2 the Supreme Court, after considering the Wednesbury Principles and the doctrine of proportionality held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or the other of the well-known principles known as “Wednesbury Principles” namely whether the order was contrary to law, or whether relevant factors were not considered, or whether irrelevant factors were considered or whether the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. The Apex held as following: “In this context, we shall only refer to these cases. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 611, this Court referred to ’proportionality’ in the quantum of punishment but the Court observed that the punishment was ’shockingly’ disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995] 6 SCC 749, this Court stated that the court will not interfere unless the punishment awards was one which shocked the conscience of the Court. Even then, the Court would remit the matter back to the authority and would not normally substitute one punishment for the other. However, in rare situations, the Court could award an alternative penalty. It was also so stated in Ganayutham. Thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in 2 (2001) 2 SCC 386 Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 disciplinary cases is questioned as ’arbitrary’ under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. The court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, and such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Now, with the above principles in mind, this Court shall consider the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners, one by one, against the arguments of the counsel for the Opp. Parties. 11. Undisputedly, every case is decided on its own merit. It needs to be noted that the petitioner has been unable to substantiate his stand of being unable to seek extension of leave or for informing the concerned authorities about his persistent serious illness as is clear from the submissions of the counsel for the Opp. Party. 12. The Disciplinary Authority is right in maintaining that indiscipline in Armed Forces cannot be tolerated. Needless to state that where a delinquent commits repetitive acts of delinquency; and of the same kind, it is a case of obstinate and incorrigible behaviour and the past conduct can always be considered by the disciplinary authority in imposing the penalty. Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 13. The Supreme Court has taken very serious note in the matter of unauthorized absence. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad,3 would squarely apply to the case in hand which are reproduced hereinbelow: "6. One cannot ignore the large number of cases which come to this Court of members of uniformed forces remaining absent from duty without any reasonable explanation. Whenever action is taken, the usual plea taken is of having been ill or some such false pretext, and even fake or false medical certificates are produced in support of such a plea. We would not have taken a serious view of the matter had it not been a case of a constable belonging to CRPF remaining absent for an indefinite period. Even if we assume that the respondent was suffering from depression and was being treated as an outdoor patient, the medical certificates produced by him show that he was restored to normalcy on 4-4- 1998 yet the respondent did not choose to report for duty. The order of dismissal was passed seven months later i.e. on 2.11.1998. This itself discloses the hollowness of the claim of the respondent regarding mental depression and imbalance which he claims to have suffered." … 8. The present case is not a case of a constable merely overstaying his leave by 12 days. The respondent took leave from 16.6.1997 and never reported for duty thereafter. Instead he filed a writ petition before the High Court in which the impugned order has been passed. Members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when there is apprehension of Patna High Court CWJC No.378 of 2011 dt.14-09-2016 16 the member of the force being called 3 (2005) 13 SCC 709 Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of a uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. However, a member of the force who goes on leave and never reports for duties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merely overstaying his leave. He must be treated as a deserter. He appears on the scene for the first time when he files a writ petition before the High Court, rather than reporting to his Commanding Officer. We are satisfied that in cases of this nature, dismissal from the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the misconduct alleged." 14. In North Eastern Karnataka RTC v. Ashappa,4 the Apex Court held that, remaining absent for a long time in public utility services cannot be said to be a minor misconduct, which cannot be treated lightly. The relevant portion is produced hereinbelow: “8. Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory organisation. It has to provide public utility services. For running the buses, the service of the conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time. The respondent had been given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite such notices, he remained absent. He was found not only to have remained absent for a period of more than three years, his leave records were seen and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the respondent herein has to be treated lightly." 4 (2006) 5 SCC 137 Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 15. In several rulings, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of disciplinary authorities imposing the penalties of removal or dismissal of employees for prolonged absence or overstaying of leave. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India,5 the appellant, a constable in the Railway Protection Special Force, left duty without sanctioned leave and returned after 25 days, subsequently seeking leave. The disciplinary authority ordered his removal from service, which was set aside by a Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the employee, with directions that a lesser penalty than removal, dismissal, or compulsory retirement be imposed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reinstated the disciplinary authority’s order, and the Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters. The Court held that unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, it cannot be altered, particularly when the employee fails to demonstrate any mitigating circumstances in their favor. Therefore, the punishment could not be deemed excessive or unjust. 16. In Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat,6 the Supreme Court upheld the removal from service of a CRPF constable for overstaying his leave by 315 days. The High Court had previously ruled that the misconduct warranted only a minor penalty rather than removal, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, affirming the disciplinary authority’s action.