Plea That Constable Remained Under Treatment Of ‘Tantrik’ Unacceptable For Absence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Discharge Order

While upholding a discharge order, the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a plea that the Constable remained under treatment of ‘Tantrik’ cannot be accepted for his absence.

The Petitioner i.e., a Lady Constable having been discharged from service had filed an Application before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the Court.

A Single Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma observed, “Plea that the petitioner remained under treatment of Tantrik(s) cannot be accepted, when, the alleged treatment in case of Government Servant-petitioner is not permissible for seeking treatment so as validate absence. Even, the assertion regarding alleged Tantrik was not established, as neither such person was summoned nor examined. Nothing of this sort was led in evidence. Once the available evidence on record, establishes that the petitioner is chose to remain willful absent for which she was directed to rejoin duties on 24.04.2010 and 06.05.2010 and these notices were duly served on 10.05.2010 but she chose to remain absent; for reasons known to her then, the plea of willful absence is fully established.”

The Bench said that the absence on the face of it is wilful and the Petitioner had failed to prove during Departmental Inquiry that the absence was not wilful but was for reasons beyond her control.

Advocates Onkar Jairath and M.A. Safee appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General (AAG) Navlesh Verma appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The grievance of the Petitioner was that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, she was appointed as a Lady Constable in 5th IRBn [Mahila] Bassi, District Bilaspur in 2010. Upon appointment, she was to undergo the training as required under the applicable norms. However, she remained absent on account of ailment as per the medical certificate for 48 days and she reported back for training at 2nd IRBn Sakoh District Kangra, H.P. She availed 4 days casual leave including station leave and was supposed to join back, but on account of certain reasons she was unable to join back. Based on the report of the Commandant 2nd IRBn Sakoh, the Petitioner was placed under suspension and the Regular Departmental Inquiry was also ordered against her as per Rules 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable in the State.

The Inquiry Officer issued summary of allegations against her, levelling two charges i.e., wilful absence for 48 days and for 39 days. On receipt of the inquiry report, the Commandant 5th IRBn[M] Bassi issued a show cause notice (SCN) directing the Petitioner to submit a reply to the findings within 15 days. As the Petitioner could not reply, a discharge order was issued against her. After being discharged from service, she submitted an Appeal to the Director General of Police (DGP) and since no action was taken, she filed a Writ Petition. The Court directed the competent authority to decide the case within 6 weeks and thereafter, the DGP rejected the Appeal. Being aggrieved, she approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “In these circumstances, the decision making process for placing the petitioners under suspension and in initiating and conducting the disciplinary proceedings leading to the Inquiry Report holding the charges as proved and non-furnishing reply to Inquiry Report and the resultant Impugned Order of Discharge dated 25.08.2010 [Annexure A-8] does not warrant any interference or judicial review, in fact-situation of instant case.”

The Court remarked that the Petitioner has failed to disprove-negate the charge of wilful absence, in view of the fact that during the constabulary training, on fresh recruitment, the Petitioner remained absent for 48 days but she submitted Medical Certificate for 13 days and for period of wilful absence on second occasion, neither any intimation for leave/absence nor Medical Certificate nor any other cogent and permissible evidence was furnished to the department or even produced during the disciplinary proceedings.

“The said inquiry report has been admitted being not assailed and even the opportunity given to the petitioner to submit a response to the show cause notice remained unavailed leading to inference of acquiescence against the petitioner as she had nothing to say against the findings in the Inquiry Report, then, the impugned order of discharge does not suffer from any infirmity and moreover, when the evidence on record, leads to the only conclusion that the absence was willful”, it added.

The Court further said that even the act and conduct of the Petitioner in not furnishing any cogent and convincing documentary evidence, either based on medical certificates or otherwise to assert and establish that the absence was on account of medical exigencies or other permissible grounds in law.

“In these circumstances, the act and conduct disentitle the petitioner for any relief. … Case needs to be tested from another angle. For want of documents or other admissible evidence, the petitioner has failed to assert and establish that the absence was not willful but was on account of medical ailment or other permissible reasons”, it also noted.

Conclusion

The Court held that the incorrigible act and conduct of the Petitioner which is borne out of her wilful absence [which remains un-rebutted], is sufficient to uphold the discharge orders.

“Sympathy shall not over turn the ways and balances in favour of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that despite absence the act of State as such which shocks the conscious of this Court rather, the facts revealing a different story altogether. Absence being willful, which remains undisputed/unrebutted and is established from the records during the course of inquiry and even before the writ court, no interference is called for and the Impugned Orders of Discharge dated 25.08.2010 [Annexure P-8] and the Impugned Order dated 22.04.2015 [Annexure A-12] rejecting the appeal does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or illegality and the same are upheld”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and upheld the discharge order.

Cause Title- Sapna Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:41903)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Onkar Jairath, M.A. Safee, and Piyush Mehta.

Respondents: AAG Navlesh Verma

Click here to read/download the Judgment