Chhattisgarh High Court Reiterates That Dismissal Could Be Considered Excessive If Absence Was Due To Personal Hardship And Employee Had Long Record Of Service; Orders Reinstatement Of Police Constable

Background

Kudiam Bhima, a constable in the Chhattisgarh police force, was dismissed following a departmental inquiry into his unauthorized absence from duty between February 28, 2013, and October 16, 2013. Bhima contended that his absence was caused by his wife's serious illness and subsequent death, followed by the emotional trauma that delayed his return. The police department, however, considered this absence unauthorized and initiated disciplinary action, resulting in his removal from service. Bhima's appeal was dismissed, and he approached the High Court seeking reinstatement, arguing that his absence was not willful and that the punishment was disproportionate.

Arguments

Bhima's counsel contended that his absence, though unauthorized, was not deliberate. The absence was due to personal hardship, as his wife was undergoing long-term treatment for cancer, and Bhima was engaged in her care until her death. He submitted medical documents to support his claim. It was also argued that Bhima had sufficient leave in his account, which could have been used to cover the absence, and that his long service record warranted a lesser penalty than dismissal. On the other hand, the State, representing the police department, argued that Bhima's absence was unauthorized and the findings of the disciplinary inquiry were correct. The State emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with the conclusions reached by the inquiry, as the evidence had been properly evaluated.

Court's Reasoning

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 178, the court emphasized that an unauthorized absence does not automatically imply willful misconduct. In cases where the absence is due to compelling personal reasons—such as illness or family emergencies—the absence cannot be deemed deliberate or intentional unless there is clear evidence to support such a conclusion. In Bhima's case, the court found that the inquiry officer had not conclusively established that the absence was wilful. Bhima had submitted medical evidence regarding his wife's illness and death, which showed a legitimate reason for his absence. Moreover, the inquiry failed to consider these documents adequately, particularly the records showing Bhima's mental trauma following his wife's death.

The court further applied the principle of proportionality in determining whether the punishment of dismissal was appropriate. Referring to Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank (2014) 13 SCC 166, the court noted that a dismissal could be considered excessive if the absence was due to personal hardship and the employee had a long record of service. Bhima had served for 23 years and had earned leave that could have covered his period of absence. Given these circumstances, the court ruled that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.

Additionally, the court reiterated that its role in reviewing the findings of departmental inquiries was limited. It could not re-assess the evidence unless there was a clear case of misapplication of law or a failure to consider key evidence. In this case, the inquiry officer's failure to assess Bhima's personal circumstances and the absence of a finding on whether the absence was willful justified the court's intervention. The court concluded that Bhima's dismissal was unjustified and that the authorities should have taken into account his personal difficulties. It set aside the dismissal order and ordered his reinstatement, while leaving the issue of back wages to the appropriate authorities for further consideration.

Decided on: 14-10-2024

Citation: WPS No. 227 of 2020

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kemlesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Nupur Trivedi

Click Here To Read/Download The Order