SHRI BHAGWAN LAL ARYA versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 16-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
I 
SHRI BHAGWAN LAL ARYA 
A 
V, 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ORS_ 
MARCH 16, 2004 
[R,C LAHOTI AND DR, AR_ LAKSHMANAN, JJ,] 
B 
Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980-Rules 8(a) & 10-
Absence from duty by employee on medical grounds-Competent authority 
sanctioning leave application-Initiation of disciplinary enquiry for wilful C 
absence from service-Enquiry officer holding against the employee-
Termination of service of employee-Held, absencefi'om duty be employee on 
medical grounds cannot be termed a misconduct under the Rules-Punishment 
is excessive and disproportionate-Hence set aside, 
Appellant was recruited as a Constable in Delhi Police. While D 
undergoing training, the appellant fell down and became ill. Since his 
condition did not improve, the appellant went to his hometown for medical 
treatment and sent leave applications from there on medical grounds. 
During the period of leave, the respondents issued a notice of termination 
of service to the appellant. The appellant joined service after submitting 
a fitness certificate. The services of the appellant were terminated by the E 
respondents. The competent authority, thereafter, sanctioned leave without 
pay for the period of around 2 months and 8 days after the receipt of the 
termination order by the appellant. The appellant ma~e representation to 
the respondents for reinstatement in service. The first respondent 
reinstated the appellant in service. However, the appellant again fell i!l F 
and was on leave for several days on medical grounds and was granted 
leave by the respondents. 
A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant under Delhi 
Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. After serving a chargesheet 
on the appellant, the enquiry officer in his enquiry report held that the G 
acts of the appellant were highly reprehensible and untenable and, 
therefore, the charge against him stood fully proved. The disciplinary 
authority imp?sed the penalty of removal from service on the appellant. 
- .J 
The appeal by the appellant before the second respondent was rejected. 
Fresh revision and mercy petitions filed by the appellant were also rejected. H 
I 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 
The Writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. 
The appellant contended that the punishment of removal from 
service awarded was totally unjust, unfair, inequitable and arbitrary; that 
he did not absented himself from duty willingly; that he absented himself 
B from duty due to long illness which is supported by leave applications and 
medical certiffcates and fitness certificates from competent medical 
authority of Government Department; that the absence on medical 
grounds is not a grave misconduct under Delhi Police (Punishment & 
Appeal) Rules, 1980; and that the decision of competent authorities to 
C remove the appellant from service is against the spirit of Rules 8 and 10 
of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. 
The respondents contended that the appellant had absented himself 
unauthorisedly and wilfully and left to his home town without the 
permission of the competent authority; and that the disciplinary enquiry 
D initiated against him was proper and the punishment awarded were just 
and proper. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Rules 8 and 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & 
E Appeal Rules, 1980) provide that the penalty of removal can be imposed 
only in cases if grave misconduct and continued misconduct indicating 
incorrigibility 11nd complete unfitness for police service. The absence of 
the appellant on medical grounds with application for leave as well as 
sanction of leave can under no circumstances be termed as grave 
misconduct or continued misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. 
F 
(6-G-H; 7-A; 7-H; 8-AJ 
1.2. The High Court failed to appreciate and evaluate the order 
passed by the respondents sanctioning leave without pay for the period 
from 7.10.1994 to 15.12.1994, the period of alleged unauthorised absence. 
G The High Court also did not appreciate that after issuing sanction for leave 
for the period in question, the employee's legitimate expectation would 
be that no stern action would be taken against him with respect to the 
alleged act of misconduct which by no stretch of imagination can be 
considered act of gross misconduct or continued misconduct indicat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.