Madhya Pradesh High Court
Inayat Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 November, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414
1 W.P. No.34432/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 26th OF NOVEMBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 34432 of 2024
INAYAT KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Pratap Singh Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.K.Nirankari, Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(1) The order dated 12.12.2016 as marked annexure P-1 and order dated 29.08.2017 marked annexure P-3 and order dated 17.10.22 marked annexure P-4 and order dated 21.03.2023 marked annexure P-5 may kindly be quash and further directed respondent No. 3 may kindly be to regularize the period of absent of the petitioner from
02.07.2016 to 09.09.2016 and also directed to the respondent to pay the difference of salary.
(2) That, other relief with this Hon'ble High Court deems fit inthe fact of the case may kindly be granted"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 2 W.P. No.34432/2024
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that charge-sheet was issued to petitioner on the charge that he had remained on unauthorized absence from 02.07.2016 to 09.09.2016. It is submitted that after departmental inquiry, petitioner has been saddled with punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by said order, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Dy. Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Range, Gwalior. A mercy appeal was made to the Police Head Quarters which too has been dismissed by order of Director General of Police dated 13.03.2023. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since unauthorized absence from duty in police department is not a serious misconduct, therefore, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct of petitioner and thus, it is submitted that it requires interference. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.7125/2019 has interfered with the order on the ground that it is shocking to the conscience of the Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect may be interfered with.
3. So far as quatum of punishment is concerned,
4. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for State that Police department is a disciplined force in uniform and unauthorized absence is one of the serious misconduct and the disciplinary authority, by imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, has already shown much leniency and therefore, said punishment does not require interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case Union of India Vs. K.G. Soni reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794 has held that the Court should not interfere with Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 3 W.P. No.34432/2024 administrative decisions unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety which is shocking to the conscience of the Court.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Chairman And Managing Director,United Commercial Bank and Others vs P.C.Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 has held that if the Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for giving such a conclusion. Mere expression that punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not be meet requirement of law. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.
8. Therefore, in order to verify as to whether punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was disproportionate to the misconduct or it is shocking to the conscience of the Court, this Court has to consider the allegation of misconduct.
9. In the present case, the petitioner is a member of police force which is a disciplinary force in uniform.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 has held that it is for the employee to show that penalty was disproportionate to prove charges and he has to point out the mitigating circumstances to show that punishment can be characterized as disproportionate or shocking.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. S.Vasanthi reported in (2014) 9 SCC 315 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 4 W.P. No.34432/2024 "9. We have already reproduced paras 61 and 62 of the impugned judgment of the High Court. After detailed discussion of the various contentions advanced by the respondent herein (appellant before the High Court), the High Court repelled all those contentions and in para 61 summed up the position by holding that the respondent herein was very much guilty of deliberately tampering with the premium position as detailed in the report. So much so, it expressed its "complete agreement" in regard to the conclusions arrived at by the authorities concerned that the charges levelled against the respondent had been proved. As noticed above, charges pertain to tampering with the premium position and other records pertaining to 17 insurance policies. It had resulted in pecuniary loss to LIC as well. Charge of tampering with the record is a very serious charge and it adds to the gravity when it is coupled with financial implications. Even for such a severe charge, the disciplinary authority had inflicted the penalty of reduction in basic pay to the lowest timescale. The High Court has not even stated as to how this penalty was bad in law and simply labelled it to be "harsh" that too with no reasons. While intermeddling with this penalty, the only epithet used is "to secure the ends of justice". In the absence of any exercise undertaken by the High Court that how it perceived such a penalty to be "harsh", there was no reason to interfere with the same.
Even otherwise, we do not find such a penalty at all to be shockingly disproportionate having regard to the very serious charge levelled against the respondent.
10. The scope and power of judicial review of the courts while dealing with the validity of quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is now well-settled. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain [(2013) 10 SCC 106 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 833] , the law on this subject, is recapitulated in the following manner: (SCC pp. 110-12, paras 7-10) "7. When the charge is proved, as happened in the instant case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 5 W.P. No.34432/2024 discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist.
8. The order of the appellate authority while having a relook at the case would, obviously, examine as to whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If the appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce the penalty so imposed by the disciplinary authority. Such a power which vests with the appellate authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the court or a tribunal. The court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts. (See UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad [(2010) 5 SCC 775 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 101] .) In exercise of power of judicial review, however, the court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 6 W.P. No.34432/2024 opinion of the court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities.
9. When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be attracted, which is in tune with doctrine of Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)] rule of reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that it is totally unreasonable and arbitrary. This principle of proportionality was propounded by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service [1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)] in the following words: (AC p. 410 D-E) '... Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads of the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call "illegality", the second "irrationality" and the third "procedural impropriety". This is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 7 W.P. No.34432/2024 future of the principle of "proportionality".'
10. An imprimatur to the aforesaid principle was accorded by this Court as well in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 611 :
1988 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1987) 5 ATC 113] .
Speaking for the Court, Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) emphasising that 'all powers have legal limits' invokes the aforesaid doctrine in the following words: (SCC p. 620, para 25) '25. ... The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction.
Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review.'"
11. We are of the opinion that the High Court transgressed its limits of judicial review by itself assuming the role of sitting as a departmental appellate authority, which is not permissible in law. The principles discussed above have been summed up and summarised as follows in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh [(2013) 12 SCC 372] : (SCC p. 382, para 19) "19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 8 W.P. No.34432/2024 case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the codelinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-
delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 9 W.P. No.34432/2024 the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.""
11. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether remaining on unauthorized absence for about 70 days by a person posted in police force which is a disciplined force in uniform is a misconduct or not ?
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 has held as under :
"8. The present case is not a case of a constable merely overstaying his leave by 12 days. The respondent took leave from 16-6-1997 and never reported for duty thereafter. Instead he filed a writ petition before the High Court in which the impugned order has been passed. Members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this nature, in whatever manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when there is apprehension of the member of the force being called upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed. We cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of a uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. However, a member of the force who goes on leave and never reports for duties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merely overstaying his leave. He must be treated as a deserter. He appears on the scene for the first time when he files a writ petition before the High Court, rather than reporting to his Commanding Officer. We are satisfied that in cases of this nature, dismissal from the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the misconduct alleged."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 10 W.P. No.34432/2024
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board And Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under:
"19. In Bhagwan Lal Arya [Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commr. of Police, (2004) 4 SCC 560 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 661] this Court opined that the unauthorised absence was not a grave misconduct inasmuch as the employee had proceeded on leave under compulsion because of his grave condition of health. Be it noted, in the said case, it has also been observed that no reasonable disciplinary authority would term absence on medical grounds with proper medical certificate from government doctors as a grave misconduct.
20. In Jagdish Singh [Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engg. College, (2009) 7 SCC 301 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 569] the Court took note of the fact that the appellant therein was a sweeper and had remained absent on four spells totalling to fifteen days in all in two months. In that context, the Court observed thus : (SCC p. 304, para 8) "8. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for fifteen days on four occasions in the months of February and March 2004. This was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that is alleged, in our view, would definitely amount to violation of discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. We hasten to add, if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this appeal."
21. If both the decisions are appositely understood, two aspects clearly emerge. In Bhagwan Lal Arya [Bhagwan Lal Arya v.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 11 W.P. No.34432/2024 Commr. of Police, (2004) 4 SCC 560 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 661] , the Court took note of the fact, that is, production of proper medical certificate from a government medical doctor and opined about the nature of misconduct and in Jagdish Singh [Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engg. College, (2009) 7 SCC 301 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 569] the period of absence, status of the employee and his track record and the explanation offered by him. In the case at hand, the factual score being different, to which we shall later on advert, the aforesaid authorities do not really assist the respondent.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent has commended us to the decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India [Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 609] to highlight that in the absence of a finding returned by the inquiry officer or determination by the disciplinary authority that the unauthorised absence was wilful, the charge could not be treated to have been proved. To appreciate the said submission we have carefully perused the said authority. In the said case, the question arose whether "unauthorised absence from duty" did tantamount to "failure of devotion to duty" or "behaviour unbecoming of a government servant" inasmuch as the appellant therein was charge- sheeted for failure to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. After adverting to the rule position the two-Judge Bench expressed thus : (SCC pp. 181-82, paras 16-18) "16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether 'unauthorised absence from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances.
17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 12 W.P. No.34432/2024 not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.
18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct."
23. We have quoted in extenso as we are disposed to think that the Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar case [Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 609] has, while dealing with the charge of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant, expressed the aforestated view and further the learned Judges have also opined that there may be compelling circumstances which are beyond the control of an employee. That apart, the facts in the said case were different as the appellant on certain occasions was prevented to sign the attendance register and the absence was intermittent. Quite apart from that, it has been stated therein that it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion that the absence is willful. On an apposite understanding of the judgment Krushnakant B. Parmar case [Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 609] we are of the opinion that the view expressed in the said case has to be restricted to the facts of the said case regard being had to the rule position, the nature of the charge levelled against the employee and the material that had come on record during the enquiry. It cannot be stated as an absolute Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 13 W.P. No.34432/2024 proposition in law that whenever there is a long unauthorised absence, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to record a finding that the said absence is willful even if the employee fails to show the compelling circumstances to remain absent.
24. In this context, it is seemly to refer to certain other authorities relating to unauthorised absence and the view expressed by this Court. In State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla [State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] the Court, dealing with unauthorised absence, has stated thus : (SCC p. 473, para 11) "11. Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorised absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorised absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorised absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct."
25. Again, while dealing with the concept of punishment the Court ruled as follows : (P.L. Singla case [State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] , SCC pp. 473-74, para 14) "14. Where the employee who is unauthorisedly absent does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 14 W.P. No.34432/2024 service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence."
26. In Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 11 SCC 678 :
(2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 668] , the appellant therein had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of six months and further had also written threatening letters and conducted some other acts of misconduct. Eventually, the employee was visited with order of dismissal and the High Court had given the stamp of approval to the same. Commenting on the conduct of the appellant the Court stated that he was not justified in remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duty for more than six months because in the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employee cannot be countenanced.
27. Thus, the unauthorised absence by an employee, as a misconduct, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula for imposition of punishment. It will depend upon many a factor as has been laid down in P.L. Singla [State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla, (2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719] ."
****** "33. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organisation. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Govt. of India v. George Philip [(2006) 13 SCC 1 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 365] : (SCC p. 14, para 18) "18. ... In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months' time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organisation. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 15 W.P. No.34432/2024 spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same." We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and restate with the hope that the employees in any organisation should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organisation. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organisation develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development.""
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force And Others Vs. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 has held that order of dismissal from service after considering earlier punishments on account of his act of indiscipline and negligence does not amount to double jeopardy and the past conduct of delinquent employee can be taken into consideration and has further held as under:
"13. Contrary to findings of the disciplinary authority, the High Court accepted the version of the respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the disciplinary authority that the unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:21414 16 W.P. No.34432/2024 doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
15. Thus, it is clear that since petitioner has not challenged findings with regard to unauthorized absence, therefore, his unauthorized absence of 70 days from duty cannot be said to be in compulsion, but it was a voluntary act on the part of petitioner.
16. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that conduct of petitioner was an example of indiscipline of the highest level. Inspite of that, the disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view against the petitioner by awarding punishment of only stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
17. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (and) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 12/4/2024 7:48:59 PM