The court remands the case to the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty other than dismissal or removal, considering the constable's 36 years of service and interim reinstatement.
In a notable judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the removal of Ramesh Chandra Singh, a constable of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), for unauthorized absence from duty and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment. Justice Indrajeet Shukla presiding over the case, emphasized the need for a more proportionate penalty in light of the constable's extensive service history and interim developments.
The case revolved around Singh's unauthorized absence for 160 days in 1999, which led to his removal from service in 2000. The High Court observed procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, notably the inquiry officer's failure to issue a separate recommendation for punishment as mandated by the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Highlighting the constable's 36 years of service, Justice Shukla noted that Singh had been reinstated in 2005 and promoted to head constable in 2016, serving until his superannuation in 2024. The court found the punishment of removal disproportionate, especially given the absence of any adverse reports during his post-reinstatement service.
The court also addressed the issue of procedural lapses, such as the inquiry officer’s recommendation being included in the inquiry report rather than separately, which was against the procedural requirements. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that while unauthorized absence is a serious issue, the absence of willfulness in Singh's case, as argued by his counsel citing health and personal difficulties, warranted a more lenient approach.
In its directive, the court instructed the disciplinary authority to impose a lesser punishment than dismissal or removal and to reconsider the forfeiture of Singh's salary for the period of absence. The judgment underscored the importance of proportionate punishment and procedural fairness in disciplinary actions within public service.
This decision sets a precedent for how unauthorized absence cases should be approached, emphasizing a balanced consideration of service records and procedural compliance.
Bottom Line:
Service Law - Unauthorized absence from duty - Quantum of punishment - Removal from service set aside considering the length of service, superannuation, and interim reinstatement - Disciplinary authority directed to impose any punishment other than dismissal or removal from service.
Statutory provision(s): U.P. Subordinate Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, Rule 14(1), Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ramesh Chandra Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2841414
