Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.Balanna vs The Union Of India & Ors. on 12 March, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916
1 WP-5363-2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5363 of 2005
K.BALANNA
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Suyash Mohan Guru - Deputy Solicitor General for the
respondents.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while praying for the following reliefs:-
"7.1 to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders in the nature of Certiorari, thereby quashing the order dt. 15.5.2001 passed by Respondent No.5 (Copy not supplied), order dated 9.6.2003 passed by Respondent No.4 (Annexure-P-2), order dt. 21.6.2004 passed by Respondent No.3 (Annexure-P-3) order dated 14.3.2005 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-P-4) 7.2 to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner in the service w.e.f. 15.5.2001 and grant him all consequential benefits including arrears of salary. 7.3 To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice. 7.4 Cost of the petition."Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 2 WP-5363-2005
2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the petitioner was serving as a Sepoy in the Central Reserve Police Force and was posted with the 75 Battalion CRPF at Tezpur, Assam. He had obtained leave from Respondent No. 5 for the period from 22.05.2000 to 20.06.2000 due to the illness of his daughter. During the course of this leave, the petitioner himself became seriously ill and was unable to return to the Battalion where he was posted. He remained under medical treatment from 05.06.2000 until 13.02.2002 and, therefore, could not rejoin his duties during that period. On 13.02.2002, the petitioner was declared medically fit to resume service and obtained a fitness certificate to that effect. However, when he reported back at Tezpur to rejoin his duties, the Second-in-
Command and the Deputy Commandant refused to allow him to resume service even after repeated requests. The petitioner then reported at 129 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Gwahati, from there he went to Laamdi and further to Darma Nagar Transit Camp. On reaching the Transit Camp, the petitioner was asked to join his previous Unit. The petitioner thereafter reached Band Talab, Jammu, where his Unit was situated, but was not allowed to join. The petitioner, thereafter, came to Bhopal and requested Respondent No.4 to issue necessary instructions for his joining, but no such direction was ever issued. Later on, the petitioner came to know that a departmental enquiry was instituted against him as he failed to join the duties after the sanctioned leave, and a major penalty of removal from service was passed against him by Respondent No.5 vide order dated 15.05.2001. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against the order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 3 WP-5363-2005 punishment before respondent No. 4, and the same was rejected vide order dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision which was rejected vide order dated 21.06.2004 (Annexure P-3). Further, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition, which was also turned down vide order dated 14.03.2002 (Annexure P-4). Hence, assailing the aforesaid orders, this petition was filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed as they are the result of the Departmental Enquiry, which was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing. It was argued that the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted was violative of principles of natural justice and without complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules applicable in the petitioners' department. Further, the counsel contends that the authorities failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment for irregular motions and mental depression, and as soon as he was declared medically fit, he came back to rejoin his duty, and also supplied the necessary medical certificates. It was further contended that because the family members of the petitioner were illiterate and he was undergoing treatment, he failed to apply for the extension of the leave or inform the authorities about the same. The counsel also submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate looking into the fact that the absenteeism of the petitioner was not wilful but was on account of unavoidable circumstances. In support of his contentions the counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 4 WP-5363-2005 Union of India and others v. Giriraj Sharma reported in AIR 1994 SC 215, Kruskant B. Parmar v. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 , and on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Ajay Singh Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (W.A. No.261 of 2024) and Manoj Sisodiya v. Registrar General and others (W.P. No.18169 of 2015). It was submitted by the counsel by way of written submissions that the petitioner was diagnosed with the clinical depression which was akin to that of a person with unsound mind, hence the authorities failed to consider this aspect and instead of providing accommodation to the petitioner consider the mental illness as misconduct which certainly cannot be done in light of the decision passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Chhattar Singh v. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8793 .
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents contends that the impugned orders are rightly being passed after due compliance with rules and regulations and align with principles of natural justice. The counsel contended that several communications dated 21.06.2000, 11.07.2000, and 19.07.2000 (Annexure R-1) were sent to the petitioner at his residential address, directing him to report back for duty; however, he failed to do so and did not even seek an extension of his leave. The counsel further argued that the petitioner's unauthorized absence constituted a serious act of misconduct. Consequently, a complaint under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949 was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Commandant, 75 Battalion CRPF, which issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner by order dated 07.08.2000. Subsequently, a Court of Inquiry Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 5 WP-5363-2005 declared the petitioner a "deserter" by order dated 02.11.2000. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued against him and sent to his home address through a memo dated 15.11.2000. Despite repeated attempts by the postal authorities, the petitioner could not be traced therefore, as a result, the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in his absence, as the authorities had no option but to proceed ex parte. The counsel further contends that the inquiry report was also sent to the home address of the petitioner, but neither a reply nor any representation was preferred by the petitioner. Hence, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner, which is proportionate to the misconduct and thus does not want any interference of this Court. In support of his contention counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Administrative Security Force and Others v. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 , and on the decision of this Court in the case of Arvind v. Secretary, Union of India and Others reported in 2023 SCC Online MP 3339.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by any of the counsels.
6. Heard the submissions and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the records reflect that the petitioner was serving as a Sepoy in the 75 Battalion CRPF at Tezpur. He went on a sanctioned leave from 22.05.2000 to 20.06.2000, but did not rejoin the duty after the completion of the above sanctioned leave period. The commanding officer made several communications dated 21.06.2000, 11.07.2000, and 19.07.2000 to the petitioner, which were sent to his recorded home address, to call upon him to rejoin his duty. As no reply or any explanation was given by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 6 WP-5363-2005 petitioner to said communication, the authorities lodged a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Commandant of 75 Battalion of CRPF, under Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949, considering the absenteeism of the petitioner from duty as serious misconduct. Thereafter a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2000, but the same remain unexecuted. The court of CJM-cum- Commandant declared the petitioner as 'Deserter' vide order dated 02.11.2000 and in furtherance of the same an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. A copy of charge-sheet was also forwarded by the respondent to the petitioners' home address vide memo dated 15.11.2000 contained in Annexure R-3, and a perusal of the same reflects that the postal authorities made several delivery attempts from 20.12.2000 to 26.12.2000, but they were unable to trace the petitioner. The enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 29.11.2000, and this intimation was also communicated to the petitioner. Further, enquiry officer sent a copy of memo and articles of the charges to the petitioner on 04.12.2000. A perusal of Annexure R-5 reflects that the letter about intimation of appointment of inquiry officer was returned back by the postal authorities with the remark 'Not Available' and the communication dated 04.12.2000 was returned with the remark that petitioner did not reside in the town. However, again by communication dated 27.02.2001, the inquiry office provided an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before him within 15 days, the above communication was also sent to PS Chagalamarri vide registered post dated 28.02.2001. As no reply was received from the petitioner the enquiry officer proceeded ex-parte and after Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 7 WP-5363-2005 examining all the prosecution witnesses, found the charges against the petitioner proved. The copy of the report of enquiry officer was also sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.04.2001, and as no representation was made by the petitioner against the inquiry report the disciplinary authority concluded the proceedings and imposed the penalty of 'dismissal from service' on account of the proven misconduct of the petitioner remaining unauthorizedly absent from the duty from 21.06.2000 to 14.05.20001.
8. From the aforesaid discussion it is evident that the respondent authorities had made several attempts to contact the petitioner and also provided him ample opportunities at every stage of the proceedings to defend his cause. On the contrary, the petitioner had never made any sort of attempt to inform the authorities about his absenteeism from the duty, which shows the lackadaisical conduct on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that he raised the dispute regarding the fact that he was never served with the notices/communications made by the respondents and was unaware of the departmental proceedings before the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority and for the very first time raising the same before this Court. Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the case it is evident that the respondent authorities proactively made attempts to reach out the petitioner to ensure that every stage of the proceedings be informed to the petitioner so as to provide him the opportunity to defend his cause. Conversely the petitioner being a member of uniformed force has shown a lackadaisical conduct in not informing the authorities about his absenteeism from the duty for a prolonged period of more than a year. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 8 WP-5363-2005 above aspect of being absent from the service by a member of armed/uniformed force is dealt by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 , wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. The present case is not a case of a constable merely overstaying his leave by 12 days. The respon- dent 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 inconve-nient, 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 de-serter. 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, dis-missal from the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the misconduct alleged."
9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. P.L. Singla reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469 held in paragraph 11 and 14 as under:
"11. Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two courses are Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 9 WP-5363-2005 open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct.
***
14. Where the employee who is unauthorizedly 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 service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence. Where the punishment is either dismissal or removal, it may not be necessary to pass any consequential orders relating to the period of unauthorized absence (unless the rules require otherwise). Where the punishment awarded for the unauthorized absence, does not result in severance of employment and the employee continues in service, it will be necessary to pass some consequential order as to how the period of absence should be accounted for and dealt with in the service record. If the unauthorized absence remains unaccounted, it will result in break in service, thereby affecting the seniority, pension, pay etc., of the employee. Any consequential order directing how the period of absence should be accounted, is an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not affect or supersede the order imposing punishment."
10. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Abrar Ali (Supra) has held as under:
"13. Contrary to findings of the disciplinary authority, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 10 WP-5363-2005 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 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.
****
16. We are in agreement with the findings and conclusion of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority on Charge 1. Indiscipline on the part of a member of an Armed Force has to be viewed seriously. It is clear that the respondent had intentionally disobeyed the orders of his superiors and deserted the Force for a period of 5 days. Such desertion is an act of gross misconduct and the respondent deserves to be punished suitably."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed as a member of disciplined force, therefore, such a conduct cannot be spared as the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anrs. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 693 has held in 6 paragraph as under:
"6........We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force......."
12. If the conduct of the petitioner is pondered over in the light of the aforesaid decisions, it would reveal that the petitioner despite being a member of uniformed force remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for such a long period is uncalled for. Hence, the authorities have rightly decided the case of the petitioner and no interference with impugned orders Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20916 11 WP-5363-2005 is warranted.
13. The case relied on by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts hence they are of no assistance to the petitioner. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that no interference with the impugned orders is warranted.
14. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ROHIT/PB Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRADYUMNA BARVE Signing time: 17-03-2026 17:38:36