The Allahabad High Court has set aside the removal of a Provincial Arms Constabulary (PAC) constable who was dismissed from service in 2000 for unauthorized absence of 160 days. The Court termed the punishment disproportionate, considering the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation after serving the department for 36 years, including the period he served under interim protection.
The legal issue before the Court was whether the punishment of removal from service awarded to a constable for unauthorized absence was proportionate and whether the disciplinary inquiry suffered from procedural infirmities. Justice Indrajeet Shukla of the Lucknow Bench partly allowed the writ petition filed by Ramesh Chandra Singh, setting aside the removal order dated April 14, 2000, and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders. The Court remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider a lesser punishment.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a constable in the 25th Battalion, PAC, Raebareli, proceeded on two days of casual leave on May 12, 1999. He was due to report for duty on May 15, 1999, but remained absent until October 20, 1999, resulting in an unauthorized absence of 160 days.
A departmental inquiry was instituted with a charge sheet issued on January 5, 2000. The petitioner claimed he could not return due to illness and the collapse of his house in a storm. The Inquiry Officer examined witnesses and rejected the petitioner’s defense, citing contradictions between his plea of illness and the plea of house collapse.
Consequently, the disciplinary authority passed an order on April 14, 2000, removing the petitioner from service. A separate order was passed forfeiting his salary for the period of absence. The petitioner challenged these orders before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal and subsequently filed the present writ petition. Notably, the High Court had stayed the removal order on October 15, 2004, leading to the petitioner’s reinstatement in November 2005. He continued in service until his retirement on July 31, 2024.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.G.S. Parihar and Mr. Ajai Krishna Yadav, argued that the punishment was arbitrary and excessive. They contended that the Inquiry Officer failed to consider medical certificates proving the petitioner’s illness. It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer erred in recommending the punishment of removal within the inquiry report itself, which they argued was beyond his competence. The counsel also raised the plea of “double jeopardy,” stating that the petitioner was punished twice for the same misconduct—once by forfeiture of salary and again by removal.
Representing the State, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner was a “habitual absentee” with a track record of 10 prior instances of unauthorized absence. The State contended that the petitioner’s plea of illness was a “cock and bull story” invented later, as his initial application for leave extension mentioned only the collapse of his house. The State maintained that all procedural requirements under the 1991 Rules were followed.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Indrajeet Shukla first addressed the objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Utkal Highways, Engineering & Contractors v. Chief General Manager, the Court held that dismissing a petition on the ground of alternative remedy after it had been pending for 21 years would not be justified.
On the issue of unauthorized absence, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, observing that while absence due to compelling circumstances like illness might not be willful, long unauthorized absence does not always require a separate finding of willfulness by the disciplinary authority. The Court upheld the Inquiry Officer’s findings that the medical certificates were unreliable due to contradictions in the petitioner’s defense.
However, the Court found a procedural error in the Inquiry Officer’s report. The Court noted that under Appendix-I of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, an Inquiry Officer may make a recommendation regarding punishment “separately” from the proceedings. The Court observed:
“The aforesaid provision itself goes to indicate that the word ‘separately’ connotes recommendation has to be made distinctly/ separately, but in the case in hand, recommendation has not been made separately, and it has been made along with the enquiry report… If the recommendation is composite, then the same is defective.”
Regarding the reference to the petitioner’s past conduct, the Court relied on State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh, holding that mere reference to past conduct does not vitiate the order if it is not the sole foundation of the punishment.
Ultimately, the Court focused on the proportionality of the punishment. The Bench noted that the petitioner had served for 36 years (16 years prior to removal and 20 years after reinstatement), was promoted to Head Constable in 2016, and had superannuated. Citing Alexandar Pal Singh v. Divisional Operating Superintendent, the Court held that the penalty was “grossly disproportionate.”
Decision The High Court set aside the impugned orders of removal, appellate order, and revisional order. The Court directed the disciplinary authority to:
- Consider the imposition of any punishment except dismissal or removal from service.
- Pass a fresh order regarding the salary for the period of unauthorized absence.
- Recalculate and release all post-retiral dues within one month of the fresh order.
The Court concluded:
“This court is mindful that writ petitioner has reached the age of superannuation and has served the department for 36 years… the order of removal from service is disapproved in the facts of this case.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Singh v. The State of U.P. Through The Secy Home and 3 Ors.
- Case Number: WRIT-A No. 6218 of 2004
- Coram: Justice Indrajeet Shukla
- Counsel for Petitioner: H.G.S. Parihar, Ajai Krishna Yadav, Anil Kumar Maurya, Mansha Shukla, Meenakshi Singh, Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Vivek Mishra
- Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C.
