Madhya Pradesh High Court
V.R.Nagwanshi vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816
1 WP-6720-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6720 of 2007
V.R. NAGWANSHI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jagdamba Bux Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ishan Soni - Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call all the relevant records from the Office of respondent No.5 pertaining to service carrier of the petitioner, for its kind perusal.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may Kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dt. 14.04.2004 (Ann.P/7), 7.3.2006 (Ann.P/8), 27.6.2006 (Ann.P/9) and 17.01.2007 (Ann.P/10) of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 by reinstating to petitioner in the service.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court be further graciously pleased to pass the order of all consequent benefit in favour of petitioner till his reinstatement in the service.
(iv) Any other relief/order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice with costs."
2. The facts as detailed in the memorandum of petition reflect that the petitioner, who was working as Constable with the respondent proceeded on Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 2 WP-6720-2007 leave from 14.04.2003 to 13.05.2003 for 30 days. However, as the petitioner fell ill and became indisposed, he made an applications for extension of leave period vide Annexures P/1 and P/2. The petitioner then on 14.10.2003 joined the duties. However, vide order dated 12.12.2003, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of overstaying leave period, then a departmental inquiry was initiated and the charge sheet containing two charges pertaining to unauthorized absence were levelled vide Annexure P/6. However, respondent No.5 after completion of charge-sheet vide impugned order dated 14.04.2004 (Annexure P/7) imposed penalty of removal. Against the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2006 (Annexure P/8). Assailing the above orders, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent No.3 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2006 (Annexure P/9). At last, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition before respondent No.2 which also got dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P/10). Thus, assailing all the aforesaid orders, this petition is filed.
3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are unsustainable inasmuch as the same have been passed in complete ignorance of the applications for extension of leave period so submitted by petitioner vide Annexures P/1 and P/2. It is contended by the counsel that not only the applications but the medical certificate which is contained in Annexure P/3 clearly reveal that petitioner was not well as he was suffering from Hepatitis C viral fever and therefore, absence from duty was bona fide and inadvertent and was on account of unavoidable circumstances. It is further contended by Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 3 WP-6720-2007 the counsel that in order to prove unauthorized absence, the employer is duty bound to establish that absence was willful and on account of said willful conduct, the employee was not entitled to be continued in employment. In the present case, there is no effort by the employer to establish that non- appearance was willful and as such, the impugned order of removal is unsustainable. It further contended that authority has passed the impugned order in a purely mechanical manner and hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is also contended that the respondent erred in not giving any finding as regards the medical certificate and the application for extension of leave period moved by present petitioner. The respondents were require to appreciate that the petitioner acted bonafidely and when he recovered from the illness, he himself joined duties on 14.10.2003. However, the respondent, instead of pondering over the explanation so furnished by the petitioner as regards his absence, ventured upon to pass the impugned order which causes stigma and also causes serious detriment to the valuable rights of the petitioner. It is also contended by counsel that it is a case where there is complete failure on the part of the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to appreciate the statement of two witnesses, namely Sheshmal, witness no.1 and Son Singh, witness no.2. It is the contention of the counsel that statement of Sheshmal reveals that as no document was made available to Medical Officer, therefore, he expressed his inability to supply the document. However, Shri Son Singh clearly stated that he was informed by the In- charge doctor that the present petitioner was treated in Government Hospital, Chhindwara and said witness was also informed by the residents of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 4 WP-6720-2007 vicinity that treatment of the petitioner was going on at Pandurna. However, the testimony of Shri Son Singh has not at all been relied and referred to by the Authority while passing the impugned order. Counsel submits that the impugned order of imposition of penalty is disproportionate and has been passed without any application of mind. It is also contended by the counsel that in the present case, no Presenting Officer was appointed and aforesaid lapse vitiated the entire inquiry process. Counsel also contended that in the case in hand, the powers have been exercised under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 whereas unauthorised absence finds mentioned in Section 10 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and therefore, no action in terms of Section 11 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 could have been taken by the respondent. Counsel, in support of his contention, submits that the respondents are duty-bound to prove unauthorized absence to be willful and has placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Allahabad in W.A. No.52051/2016 (Prashant Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and others) vide order dated 22.02.2021 . Counsel further submits that there is failure to appreciate the testimony of important witnesses in the case of unauthorized absence. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tiwari v. Union of India and another passed in Civil Appeal No.4715-4716/2013 vide order dated 28.05.2013 pertaining to the submission regarding disproportionate penalty and also in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P. Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 5 WP-6720-2007 No. 5059/2011 (Ashish Rajouria v. The Union of India and others) vide order dated 10.07.2024 and also W.P No.927/2011 (Ex. Sep/Dvr. No. 941352587 Santosh Kumar v. Union of India and others) vide order dated 16.03.2018 .
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner, being a member of a disciplined force, was not expected to remain unauthorizedly absent. The present petitioner disappeared and never came back on duty. The said conduct of the petitioner entailed in passing of the impugned order. It is contended by the counsel that the charge sheet clearly reveals that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for a prolong period of 153 days and there was complete failure on the part of the petitioner to explain his unauthorized absence. Resultantly, after the conclusion of inquiry, an inquiry report was submitted in which the charges were found to be proved. Thus, appreciating the entire record pertaining to departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority ultimately passed an order of removal which is being impugned in the petition. Counsel thus submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Counsel has also referred to Annexure R/6 which is a communication given by witness Sheshmal and as per the said witness, it is evident that the said witness was deputed to visit District Hospital Chhindwara to find as to whether the petitioner herein was ever treated in the same hospital. The witness informed the Authority vide communication dated 30.07.2003 contained in Annexure R/6 that the petitioner was not found in the hospital nor any record pertaining to treatment of the petitioner was found. It is also contended by the counsel that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 6 WP-6720-2007 departmental inquiry record is available, and as per the record pertaining to departmental inquiry including the statement of Sheshmal, it was a case where the absence of the petitioner was willful and accordingly, the respondent rightly passed the order of the imposition of penalty. Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Union of India & others v. Santosh Kumar Tiwari reported in 2024 INSC 392 and Union of Indian and Others v. Ex. Constable Ram Karan reported in (2022) 1 SCC 373.
5. No other point is pressed or argued by counsel for the parties.
6. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The petitioner has been confronted with an order of imposition of penalty or removal. The order of penalty is an offshoot of charge sheet in which the following charges were levelled against the petitioner:
मद-एक यह क उ बल सं या 890800184 िसपाह /जीड वी.आर. नागवंशी 144 बटािलयन के० र०पु० बल भोपाल ने िसपाह /जीड के प म कायरत रहते हुए कािमक को दनांक 14/4/03 से 14/5/93 तर अ जत अवकाश वीकृ त करने के उपरा त भी कािमक दनांक 15/05/2003 से 14/10/2003 अथात 153 दन तक अकारण ह लगातार गैरहा जर रहा यह नह ं ब क कािमक अवकाश से गैरहा जर होन का आद है जो क के० र०पु०बल अिधिनयम, 1949 क धारा 11(1) के तहत द डनीय अपराध है ।
मद-दो यह क बल सं या 890800184 िसपाह /जीड वी.आर. नागवंशी 144 बटािलयन के० र०पु० बल भोपाल ने िसपाह /जीड के प म कायरत रहते हुए सह जानकार न दे कर अपने अिधका रय को गुमराह शासक य कया एवं स त बीमार होने तथा शासक य अ पताल ना दनवार , जला- िछं दवाड़ा (म. .) म उपचाराधीन होने का बहाना बनाकर 153 दन तक लगातार यूट से गैर हा जर रहा, जव क कसी भी अ पताल म िनयिमत उपचाराधीन रहने का मेड कल माण तुत करने म असफल रहा, जो क के० र०पु०बल अिधिनयम, 1949 क धारा 11 (1) के तहत द डनीय अपराध है ।Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 7 WP-6720-2007
8. Perusal of the charge sheet reflects that the petitioner moved an application for grant of leave and on the said application, the leave to the petitioner was sanctioned for the period commencing from 14.04.2003 to 13.05.2003 of total 30 days. The petitioner was required to report back on 14.05.2003 but the petitioner unauthorizedly remained absent from 15.05.2003 to 14.10.2003. Despite there being number of communications, the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent.
9. The petitioner submitted response to the charge sheet. The allegations were refuted by the petitioner. The proceedings were drawn by the Inquiry Officer. Before the Inquiry Officer, a total of six witnesses were examined out which the testimonies of two witnesses, namely Sheshmal and Son Singh, were heavily relied on. Witness no. 1, Sheshmal, in his testimony, stated that as instructed by the commandant witness visited District Hospital, Chhindwara on 25-07-2023. At District Hospital, Chhindwara, he met In-charge doctor and handed over a letter to him, which was sent by the commandant. The medical officer informed the witness that no documents pertaining to the treatment of the petitioner were available and then a letter was handed over by the doctor, which was addressed to the commandant and witness, then came back. The said witness was not cross-
examined by the present petitioner. Shri Son Singh, who is witness number no.2, has stated in his testimony that he was informed by the In-charge doctor orally that the petitioner was provided treatment in the Government Hospital, Chhindwara. Then the said witness went to village Thavrikurd. There also the witness was informed that the petitioner was living at his in-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 8 WP-6720-2007 laws place and was undergoing medical treatment at Pandurna. Then the witness went to Pandurna Government Hospital and Hospital In-charge informed the witness that the present petitioner had undergone treatment in the said hospital.
10. The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report and as per the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner did not place any documents to demonstrate that he was treated at those hospitals and ultimately concluded that both the charges were found to be proved as there was failure on the part of the petitioner to justify his absence. The said inquiry report in which the documents were considered by the Disciplinary Authority, subsequent to which the authority passed an order of removal. The Disciplinary Authority while passing an order of removal observed that on previous occasions also he was guilty of unauthorized absence and also was confronted with punishment.
11. The petitioner is heavily relying upon a medical certificate. The said certified is dated 13.05.2003 which has also been filed with the petition as Annexure P/3. Perusal of the same reflects that petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis C viral fever and as per the said certificate which is issued by the Ayurved Medical Officer, Government Ayurved Dispensary, Panjari, the petitioner was advised bed rest.
12. The petitioner vide Annexure P/2 which according to the counsel was sent by petitioner to the employer, made a request to extend leave on the ground that that he was being treated at Government Hospital Panjari, District Chhindwara. The other communication dated 07.06.2003 sent by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 9 WP-6720-2007 petitioner to the employer reflects that the petitioner stated that he had to go to Government Hospital Nandanwadi, District Chhindwara for the treatment. The petitioner has also filed a certificate which is issued by Medical Officer, C.M.O. Pandurna which is at page no.23 of the petition and as per the said certificate, the petitioner was under treatment w.e.f. 01.09.2003 to 04.03.2003. Thus, a cumulative assessment of the aforesaid documents prima facie reflects that the petitioner was treated at three different places. Here it is relevant to mention at this juncture that so far as Government Hospital Nanadanwadi is concerned, a communication made by an employer vide Annexure R/7 to medical officer. The medical officer vide his reply dated 14.09.2003 informed the employer that the petitioner was treated in OPD and was advised one month bed rest on 31.05.2003. However, in regard to remaining prolong period of absence, there were no documents in the District Hospital Chhindwara as well as Government Hospital Pandurna. At both these places, the witness Son Singh visited. Though Son Singh stated in his testimony that he was informed orally by the In-charge doctor that the petitioner was treated there but none of the documents were made available to the said witness. Thus, the testimony of the aforesaid witness reveals that the acuteness of the disorder of the petitioner was a fact which was required to be established by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to establish that on account of acute illness, he was not in a position to resume duties and therefore, his absence was bona fide . Unfortunately, the petitioner did not establish this fact.
13. Further from the perusal of order of Disciplinary Authority it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 10 WP-6720-2007 evident that by communication dated 07/08/2003 the petitioner was directed to report to Battalion Headquarter and undergo treatment in Group Center Hospital or Government Hospital Bhopal for better treatment, but instead of complying with the said order the petitioner was travelling to different Hospitals, showing that he was in a position to travel. Relevant para 3 of the impugned order is reproduced as under: -
"3. कािमक ने अपने बयान म अनुप थती का कारण दनांक 10/5/03 से बीमार हो जाने पर शासक य अ पताल पांजरा, शासक य अ पताल ना दनबाड़ तथा पांडुरना, जला िछं दवाड़ा (म० ०) म उपचाराधीन होना बताया है जब क उसके ारा तुत कए गए मे डकल माण प के अवलोकन से ात हुआ है क कािमक कस भी ग भीर बीमार से िसत नह ं था और न ह दनांक 13/5/03 से 13/10/03 तक वह कसी भी शासक य अ पताल म लगातार उपचाराधीन रहा। कुछ िच क सा कागजात से प होता है क 'वाइरल फ वर' के कारण वह अलग अलग ितिथय मे विभ न ाथिमक वा य के म बा रोगी के प उपचार करवाया है । इससे िस होना है क कािमक चलने-
फरने म समथ था। ऐसी थित म उसे बटािलयन मु यालय म उप थत होकर ुप के अ पताल अथवा शासक य अ पताल भोपाल जहाँ क उ म िच क सा सु वधा उपल ध है म उिचत उपचार कराना चा हए था जैसा क इस कायालय ारा दनांक 7/8/03 को प िलखकर कािमक को िनदिशत कया गया था क तु कािमक ने िनदश क अवहे लना क एवं सामुदाियक वा य के जहाँ क िच क सा यव था नग य होती है म अपने आप को उपचाराधीन दखाता रहा।"
The aforesaid observation of the disciplinary authority reflects that the absence of the petitioner from the duty was willful.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force and others v. Abrar Ali reported in (2017) 4 SCC 507 has 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816
11 WP-6720-2007 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)
15. The factum of unauthorized absence by a member of Disciplinary force was taken into consideration by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709 wherein it has been 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 12 WP-6720-2007 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."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 719 while dealing with unauthorised absence, has held as under:
"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.
****
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 service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 13 WP-6720-2007
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678 has held as under:
"19. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 3 SCC 309 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 271 : AIR 2003 SC 1724] the settled legal position has been reiterated. The Court held that absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service."
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held as under
"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."
19. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:46816 14 WP-6720-2007 force......."
20. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of removal of present petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner's absence was willful as there was failure on the part of the petitioner to respond to the employer.
21. With the aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 24-09-2025 12:12:18