Denial Of Leave To Attend To Ailing Mother No Grounds To Skip Duty: J&K High Court Upholds Withholding Of CRPF Personnel's Salary For Unauthorised Absence

In dismissing a writ petition filed by petitioner Mohammad Yousuf Bhat, a constable in the CRPF, challenging the order of punishment imposed on him for his unauthorized absence from duty Justice Sindhu Sharma observed,

“The grant or rejection of the leave is the prerogative of the competent authority, who has to consider administrative and official factors while considering the personal requests of the applicant. This cannot be a ground to oppose the decision and act on its own. The rejection of leave cannot be a ground to leave duty and same cannot be condoned”.

Bhat was appointed as a constable in the CRPF in 1994 and was posted in the 185th Battalion. In 2011, he left his duty without permission to attend to his ailing mother and remained absent for 63 days. He was declared a deserter and a judicial trial was conducted, resulting in his dismissal from service. However, on appeal, the IGP, CRPF, reinstated him with a penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

Bhat challenged the punishment imposed on him, contending that he was not given an opportunity of being heard and that the punishment was disproportionate to the offense committed. He also claimed that he had applied for leave to attend to his ailing mother, but it was not granted.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had absented himself from duty without permission and had failed to respond to phone calls from the authority. They also submitted that the petitioner had been declared a deserter and had been dismissed from service, but was later reinstated with a penalty.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Sharma observed that the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from duty and had failed to obtain prior permission from the authorities.

It added, “As a member of a disciplined force operating in a sensitive area, the petitioner was fully aware of the requirement to obtain proper permission before leaving the camp. There is also no record of his leave application supporting his claims in this petition”.

Observing that Bhat's absence from duty without permission amounted to misconduct, especially for a member of a disciplined force the Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge any procedural lapses during the departmental inquiry.

The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Constable Sunil Kumar and State of U.P. and others vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, and observed that the petitioner had failed to show how the penalty awarded was disproportionate to the proved charges.

The court held that the respondents had taken a lenient view despite the fact that the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force and had reinstated him on duty.

“The respondents having taken compassionate view have only awarded the punishment, which was appropriate, as such, the impugned order does not merit any interference”, the bench remarked.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the withholding of salary of the CRPF personnel on account of unauthorized absence.

Case Title: Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment