VIRENDER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dtd. 16/9/2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 1548/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner wherein he had sought quashing of order dtd. 12/10/2013 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of forfeiture of one increment with cumulative effect on him. The learned Tribunal has also rejected the challenge to the appellate order dtd. 17/6/2014 vide which, the petitioner's appeal against the penalty order was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the charge of being on unauthorized leave for 248 days was not made out against him. He submits that the petitioner was suffering from acute spondylitis during this period and, therefore, could not seek medical leave but had duly submitted the medical certificates after rejoining duties, which aspect, the learned Tribunal has ignored. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Authority has also taken into account his past leave record even though the petitioner had already been penalized for 65 prior incidents of remaining on unauthorized leave. The learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that even though as per the charge sheet, the petitioner had remained on 248 days unauthorized leave, the appellate order mentions 277 days leave. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that taking into account the petitioner's past conduct as also the inordinately long period for which he remained on unauthorized leave and that too without giving any information to his superior officers in this regard, he has infact, been let off lightly. He submits that the petitioner's misconduct of remaining on unauthorized leave for 248 days and that too in a force like the Delhi Police is a gross act of indiscipline and cannot be condoned. Even the medical certificate produced by the petitioner from a private hospital, he contends, only stated that the petitioner was suffering from backache which was rightly not accepted as sufficient ground for him to remain on leave for such a long period and that too without any intimation to the respondent. Even otherwise, the petitioner was habitual of remaining on unauthorized leave from time to time as is evident from his service record, which shows that he was penalized on 65 earlier occasions for remaining absent without leave but he has remained incorrigible.