Banwari Lal vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2024
6.3 Another troubling aspect of the case is that the applicant gave a
statement in the enquiry on 06.02.2007 that he had gone home after
taking leave for 23-24.07.2004, but could not return due to
deterioration of his son's health and that he intimated this fact by post
on 25.07.2004 and again informed by post on 09.08.2004 as his son
was in serious condition. It is not disputed that the applicant's son
passed away on 21.08.2005. The sickness of the applicant's son and his
death took place during the period of unauthorized absence from
25.07.2004 to 04.09.2005. Yet we find no mention of this consideration
in the findings of the enquiry officer as well as the order passed by the
disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the appellate authority and
the revising authority also do not address this aspect. A sensitive and
humane approach would have required at least an acknowledgment of
the personal tragedy suffered by the applicant. We find to our dismay
that such consideration was given short shrift by the respondents.
Consequently, the punishment imposed on the applicant, being grossly
disproportionate in our opinion, has shocked our conscience.
6.4 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
respondents argued that the matter may not be remanded to the
Page 8 of 9
CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00404 of 2012 BanwariLal Vs. U.O.I. &Ors.
respondents.