Discipline Is Of Paramount Consideration In Military Services, Lenient View Will Bring Organisational Disorder: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice N Senthilkumar was hearing a plea against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding a driver's removal from service and seeking to reinstate him with monetary benefits.

The petitioner was selected as a Driver and posted as CMD, MT Section, Officers Training Academy in Chennai. Though he was sanctioned 17 days of earned leave but continued to be absent for a period of 99 days. During this absence, the Commandant of the Officers Training Academy issued a show-cause notice directing him to report to duty. Subsequently, he was served with a Memorandum of Charges. After giving explanation, the petitioner was called for an enquiry.

The disciplinary authority, after considering the charges and explanation offered, concluded that the petitioner had wilfully remained absent for 99 days and thus, finding him guilty, awarded him a penalty of compulsory retirement. Though an appeal was made, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the same and directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's application. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Commandant.

The petitioner had contended that his reason for absence, which was due to an accident and subsequent physiotherapy, was not considered by the authorities. He had also contended that the authorities had taken note of his past conduct while awarding punishment when it was not made part of the charges framed. He had also argued that the punishment imposed was not proportionate to the charges framed.

The court opined that the petitioner had not considered his employment seriously and a lenient view could not be taken in such cases. The court also observed that when such unauthorised absence was not viewed strictly, it could set a bad precedent.

“We find that the Petitioner's unauthorised absence coupled with the fact that the Petitioner did not choose to inform his superior authorities at any point in time during his unauthorised absence was rightly viewed by the 2nd Respondent as a serious lapse. If such unauthorised absence is not viewed strictly, it will set a bad precedent, especially amongst persons serving in positions in the offices of armed/military forces. The Petitioner seems to have come up with a version for the first time after almost 100 days, only after receiving a show cause notice from the authorities,” the court said.

The court also rejected the petitioner's submission that the authorities had not considered his explanation. The court observed that it was for the competent authority to decide whether the explanation was satisfactory and it was not for the court to substitute its views for the vires of the competent authority.

On the question of considering past conduct, the court noted that the records revealed that the petitioner was put to notice and had even replied to it. Thus, the court noted that there was no reason to interfere with the order.

Regarding the quantum of punishment, the court observed that it could not interfere with the punishment unless it shocked the conscience of the court. In the present case, the court noted that the punishment was not one which shocked the court. The court added that the authorities had consciously considered the petitioner's period of service and pecuniary position while granting pension and gratuity.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the removal, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M. Gnanasekar

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Subramanian Additional Central Government Standing Counsel

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 99

Case Title: S Harikrishnan v Union of India and Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 31093 of 2018