Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities. The court held that:
- The petitioner’s absence was not wilful and did not amount to misconduct.
- The inquiry officer failed to scrutinize the medical evidence appropriately.
- The petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary and all consequential benefits, which must be paid within six weeks.
Facts
- Employment Background: The petitioner served as an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). He was stationed at the Aviation Security Group (ASG), Chennai, and later transferred to ASG Bangalore.
- Medical Leave: He was granted leave from April 25, 2014, to May 18, 2014, due to medical reasons. On May 17, 2014, he requested an extension, citing Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI), supported by medical prescriptions and pathological reports.
- Series of Medical Consultations:
- The petitioner sought treatment from various hospitals between May 2014 and July 2014 for worsening symptoms, including ARI, renal calyx issues, and malaria.
- He submitted medical certificates and reports along with leave extension requests.
- Disciplinary Actions:
- Despite regular communication, his leave extension requests were denied.
- A departmental inquiry was initiated, accusing the petitioner of overstaying leave by 68 days without proper authorization.
- He was penalized with a reduction in pay for two years, a decision upheld in appeal and revision proceedings.
Issues
- Was the petitioner’s absence wilful, constituting misconduct under CISF rules?
- Did the authorities err in dismissing the medical evidence and imposing a disproportionate penalty?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that his absence was unavoidable due to genuine medical issues, substantiated by certified medical records and continuous updates to his unit.
- He contended that the authorities disregarded the medical evidence and imposed a penalty without justification.
- Cited judgments highlighting that absence under compelling circumstances should not attract severe penalties, including:
- Union of India v. Girraj Sharma (1994), where the Supreme Court held that absence justified by unforeseen circumstances warrants only minor penalties.
- Virendra Kumar v. Union of India, which emphasized proportionality in disciplinary actions.
- Arunangsho Roy v. State of Tripura, underlining the need for authorities to verify the authenticity of medical records before rejecting them.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondents maintained that:
- The petitioner violated service rules by overstaying leave without permission, amounting to misconduct.
- The medical records submitted were unreliable as:
- They did not recommend treatment at specialized hospitals.
- The petitioner did not produce consistent evidence of medication or specialist treatment.
- The penalty was proportionate, considering the petitioner’s repeated refusal to comply with instructions to return to duty.
Analysis of the Law
- Nature of Leave and Absence:
- While leave is not an employee’s absolute right, absence due to emergent or compelling circumstances supported by credible evidence should not be considered misconduct.
- Unauthorized absence must be deliberate or wilful to constitute misconduct under service rules.
- Quasi-Judicial Duties of Inquiry Officers:
- Inquiry officers in disciplinary proceedings must analyze evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities and provide reasoned findings.
- A failure to properly scrutinize or verify evidence amounts to procedural impropriety.
- Proportionality of Penalty:
- Disciplinary actions should be proportionate to the employee’s conduct and take into account mitigating factors such as health conditions or unavoidable circumstances.
Precedent Analysis
- Union of India v. Girraj Sharma (1994):
- Overstay due to unforeseen circumstances cannot justify termination or harsh penalties without considering the context.
- Virendra Kumar v. Union of India:
- Emphasized the need for fairness and proportionality in disciplinary actions for absence.
- Arunangsho Roy v. State of Tripura:
- Authorities must verify medical records before rejecting them as fabricated or insufficient.
Court’s Reasoning
- Lack of Wilfulness:
- The petitioner’s absence was due to verified medical conditions and could not be characterized as wilful.
- The disciplinary authority did not provide adequate reasons for rejecting the medical evidence.
- Failure of Proper Scrutiny:
- The inquiry officer dismissed the medical records based on minor inconsistencies without investigating their authenticity.
- No effort was made to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s pathological reports or treatment history.
- Disproportionate Penalty:
- The penalty imposed did not consider the petitioner’s medical condition or mitigating circumstances.
- The appellate and revisional authorities upheld the penalty without independently analyzing the evidence.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and:
- Set aside the penalty orders imposed by the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional authorities.
- Directed the payment of arrears of salary and consequential benefits within six weeks.
- Declined to remit the case for fresh proceedings due to delays and procedural lapses.
Implications
This judgment emphasizes the need for fairness and proportionality in employment disciplinary proceedings. It underscores that:
- Authorities must consider medical evidence with due diligence before penalizing employees for absence.
- Wilful misconduct must be clearly established to justify disciplinary actions.
- Procedural lapses in verifying evidence undermine the legitimacy of penalties in service disputes.