Can't Just Walk Away From His Duty When Placed In Uncomfortable Position: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of CISF Officer Over 10 Months Absence

The Delhi High Court, while upholding the dismissal of a CISF Officer over his absence from service for ten months without any justification, observed that he cannot simply walk away when placed in uncomfortable position or faced with an unpalatable situation.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a CISF Officer against the order of removal from service over unauthorized absence.

The Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held, "Ups and downs in service are a part of life. A person who has joined a uniformed service has to be ready to meet these exigencies. He cannot just walk away from his duty when placed in an uncomfortable position, or faced with a situation which is not palatable to him."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ankur Chhibber while the Respondent was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Pratima N Lakra.

Facts of the Case

On December 20 2010, the Petitioner, a CISF Officer was issued a charge sheet alleging unauthorised absence from July 05, 2010. The Petitioner did not choose to participate in the inquiry proceedings despite having been issued notices in that regard and ultimately, on October 20, 2011, was imposed a punishment of removal from service. His appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27 February 2012 and the Revision Petition there against was also dismissed on 22 August 2012.

On May 06, 2011, the High Court of Orissa allowed the Petitioner’s writ petition, following which the Petitioner reported back to duty on May 06, 2011. Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that he was not taken on rolls, and was allowed to join as Inspector only in September 2011. He contended that the Petitioner felt humiliated as having to serve as Inspector even after, as the petitioner understood, he had been granted interim relief by the High Court of Orissa.

On the other hand, the CGSC submitted that there was no justification for the Petitioner to remain away from duty from 5 July 2010 to 6 May 2011. She further submitted that as the Petitioner is a member of a paramilitary force, a greater degree of discipline is expected of him and that such a person, who remains away from duty for ten months, without any justification.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the Supreme Court has held, in several decisions, that the Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded following disciplinary proceedings unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

"It cannot be said, in the facts of the present case, that the petitioner was at all justified in remaining away from duty from 5 July 2010 till 6 May 2011, even if, one were to ignore the period from 6 May 2011 till September 2011. The petitioner remained away for more than ten months, without any justification whatsoever", the Court observed.

It also questioned the non-cooperative attitude of the Petitioner for not participating in the disciplinary inquiry.

"The petitioner cannot seek to capitalize on the allowing of his writ petition, by the High Court of Orissa, on 6 May 2011. By then, the petitioner had already remained away from duty without leave or any other justification whatsoever, for over 10 months. The respondent, therefore, acted in accordance with law in permitting the petitioner to rejoin, in deference to the decision of the High Court, and in instituting disciplinary proceedings against him for unauthorized absence from 5 July 2010 onwards", the Court observed.

It was thus of the opinion that the present case does not fall within that exalted category of cases in which the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court, so as to justify interference.

The Petitioner was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Jai Bhagwan Sangwan vs UOI & Anr. (2025:DHC:5996-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Ankur Chhibber,

Respondent- Central Governnment Standing Counsel Pratima N Lakra, Advocate Chandan Prajapati, Advocate Shailendra Kumar Mishra

Click here to read/ download Order