Chhattisgarh High Court news: Emphasising that unauthorised absence in a naxalite-affected region undermines discipline and institutional integrity, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the removal of a constable who abandoned his post for over seven months.Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a plea of a constable seeking the quashing of his termination order, consequential direction for reinstatement on the post of constable with seniority, full back wages, salary and all consequential benefits.“The petitioner, being a member of a disciplined police force deployed in a sensitive and Naxalite-affected area, remained unauthoritatively absent for 213 consecutive days from June 13 2018, to January 12, 2019, without prior sanction of leave or proper intimation to the competent authority,” the court said on April 2. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad heard the matter on April 2.Also Read | Punjab and Haryana High Court steps in: Why this sub-inspector’s punishment for extortion was slashed despite ‘guilt’The order added that in a uniformed force entrusted with the maintenance of law and order, prolonged absence without leave cannot be viewed as a mere technical lapse; rather, it undermines discipline, operational preparedness and institutional integrity.Case of unauthorised absence and terminationThe petitioner was posted at the Police Camp Jramgaon in the Bastar district when he remained absent from duty from June 13, 2018, to January 12, 2019. He contended that his absence was not willful but necessitated by personal hardships, including the death of his uncle, who adopted him, his own ill health, and his wife’s pregnancy.Following a departmental inquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Bastar, issued a final order on October 4, 2019, imposing the penalty of removal from service. This order was subsequently upheld by the Inspector General of Police (appellant authority) and the Director General of Police (mercy petition).Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Roop Ram Naik submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice.Story continues below this adHe further argued that no proper show-cause notice was served before initiating the proceedings, and the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or to submit a proper written representation against the enquiry report.State’s contention: A ‘habitual absentee’The state, represented by panel lawyer Arpit Agrawal, argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender who had previously been sanctioned with five minor and two major penalties for similar misconduct.The state emphasised that despite repeated notices directing him to ensure duty, the petitioner failed to report back to or provide a contemporaneous explanation.‘Unauthorised absence serious breach of service discipline’The court noted that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the relevant service rules.Story continues below this ad“A charge-sheet containing specific articles of charge was served; an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were duly appointed; opportunity to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine witnesses and adduce defence evidence was afforded; and a copy of the enquiry report was supplied before imposition of penalty,” the order stated.Emphasising that the petitioner failed to avail several of these opportunities despite a reminder, the court said, the disciplinary authority, upon independent consideration of the enquiry report, evidence adduced, and the petitioner’s past service record, arrived at a reasoned conclusion that the misconduct had been proved and that the petitioner had exhibited habitual indiscipline rendering him unfit for retention in service.The judgment concluded that the contention of violation of principles of natural justice is not borne out by the record, but on the contrary, it transpires that despite repeated notices and opportunities, the petitioner failed to submit a timely explanation or representation and did not avail the opportunities extended to him in full measure.Also Read | Discipline can’t cost humanity: Rajasthan High Court reinstates CRPF constable fired 23 years ago over medical emergencyThe order ended with a hand-note stating that misconduct involving indiscipline and repeated unauthorised absence constitutes a serious breach of service discipline and justifies the imposition of strict penalties by the disciplinary authority.Story continues below this ad“The courts ought not to lightly interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shown to be shockingly disproportionate or vitiated by procedural irregularity, mala fides, or violation of principles of natural justice,” the order noted.Court’s findingsThe scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is well settled.The court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence or to substitute its own opinion on the quantum of punishment unless the same is shockingly disproportionate or suffers from patent illegality.From a perusal of the orders of the authorities, it is evident that the authorities have acted strictly within the framework of law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and after considering his past service record, the gravity of misconduct, and the requirements of discipline in a uniformed force.The legal position regarding dismissal and removal from service has been settled since the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal.Also Read | 1,580 days absent: Rajasthan High Court rejects ex-constable’s 20-year legal battle over ‘compulsory retirement’In this judgement the court held that dismissal or removal from service as a measure of punishment entails penal consequences and casts a stigma, but once imposed in accordance with law and after due inquiry, it cannot be interfered with merely on sympathetic considerations.The Court clarified that termination by way of punishment, after compliance with procedural safeguards, is legally sustainable and does not warrant interference unless vitiated by mala fides or procedural illegality.