‘Indiscipline can’t go unpunished’: Chhattisgarh High Court upholds dismissal of cop absent for 434 days

Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey was hearing the plea of the constable, Naresh Kumar Netam, who challenged the orders of the disciplinary authorities terminating his service.

Concerning the proportionality of the penalty, the high court observed that a member of a disciplined force cannot remain “absent” on frivolous grounds, considering the nature of the duties involved.

“In cases of this nature, dismissal from the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the misconduct alleged,” the Chhattisgarh High Court added.

‘Joining in 2010, dismissed in 2019’

• The present case is that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of constable in the department by an order of November, 2010, and he was posted as constable at Mainpur at the relevant time.
• The services of the petitioner were transferred to Devbhog by an order of July 10, 2017, and he was relieved on the same date. However, the petitioner allegedly did not join service at the transferred place.
• In September 2018, a show-cause notice and article of charges were issued against the petitioner and the same were also served upon him through a special messenger on October 27, 2018, for his presence before the inquiry officer on November 2, 2018, but the petitioner did not turn up.
• It was claimed that the inquiry officer served five notices upon the petitioner from November 2018 to January 2019, but the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding, and then he was proceeded ex parte.
• The inquiry officer imposed the punishment of removal from service by February 2019 order, and the period of absence from July 7, 2017, to September 18, 2018, was officially classified under the ‘no work, no pay’ principle.
• The petitioner, then, preferred a departmental appeal before the inspector general of police, and the same was dismissed by an order of July 2020.
• Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition or revision before the director general of police and the same was dismissed by an order of August 2021.

Excessive, disproportionate penalty

Appearing for the constable, advocate Jitendra Nath Nande submitted that the penalty inflicted on the petitioner is wholly excessive and disproportionate, looking at the alleged misconduct.

It was added that the inquiry officer, as well as the disciplinary authority, should consider the medical condition of the petitioner’s father.

He further submitted that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing, and a show-cause notice was never served upon him.

He prayed to quash the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority.

Failed to report to transferred palace

On the contrary, government advocate Anil Pandey argued that the petitioner was a member of the armed forces and he failed to report to the transferred place.

He further submitted that a full-fledged department inquiry was conducted wherein an article of charges was issued, an inquiry officer and a presenting officer were appointed, and the department examined its witnesses and exhibited relevant documents.

He further contended that the inquiry officer submitted its report before the disciplinary authority, who concurred with the inquiry report and inflicted the penalty of removal from services.