Case Background
The appellant was serving as a Constable in the Bihar Police Service. Departmental proceedings were started against him on the allegation that he remained absent from duty for a long period without authorization. An additional charge was that he disobeyed orders of his superior officers who had called upon him to join duty, particularly in connection with Parliamentary Elections in the year 2004.
During the departmental inquiry, the appellant participated in the proceedings. He filed his reply to the charge and took the stand that he was not willfully absent but was continuously ill. According to him, he had kept the department informed about his illness.
The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry, recorded evidence and granted the appellant an opportunity to cross‑examine the witnesses. After completing the process, the Inquiry Officer held that the charges, especially that of unauthorized absence, were proved.
On the basis of this report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show‑cause notice to the appellant. After considering his explanation, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing him from service. The appellant filed a departmental appeal.
While the appeal was pending, the appellant moved the Patna High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the dismissal. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal. The Appellate Authority thereafter concurred with the Disciplinary Authority and upheld the punishment of dismissal.
Aggrieved by the departmental orders, the appellant again approached the High Court through a writ petition (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12182 of 2012). A learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court examined the matter and dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was evidence to support the finding of unauthorized absence and that no procedural irregularity had been established.
The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal No.1485 of 2018 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, challenging the judgment of the Single Judge and the underlying departmental action.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra, heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. The core challenge was to the dismissal order and the appellate order, both of which had been upheld by the learned Single Judge.
The appellant’s central defence, reiterated before the Division Bench, was that his absence from duty was not deliberate. He claimed that he had been suffering from an eye ailment and later a mental ailment. He asserted that during this period he had been regularly sending information about his illness to the department, and that the authorities wrongly ignored his medical condition and explanations.
According to the appellant, he first came to Patna for treatment of his eye problem. He was advised to undergo further treatment, after which he received treatment from a doctor at Dehri‑on‑Sone. From there, he was allegedly referred to Ranchi for mental health issues. He claimed that after obtaining treatment at Ranchi, he returned and reported back for duty.
His counsel also argued that even if some misconduct was made out, the punishment of dismissal was too harsh. To support the claim of disproportionate punishment, she relied on a judgment of the Patna High Court in Mithlesh Kumar Pathak Vs. The Union of India and others, reported in 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 97, specifically paragraph 14.
The State, on the other hand, relied upon the concurrent findings of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Single Judge. They pointed out that the charge was not merely absence, but also disobedience of clear directions to join duty, including for deployment during the 2004 Parliamentary Elections.
The Division Bench carefully examined the Inquiry Report, which the Court described as “extensive in nature”. The Court noted that at every stage of the proceedings the appellant was given a fair opportunity to participate. He was allowed to cross‑examine departmental witnesses, and this was specifically recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
After looking into the evidence led in the inquiry, the Court drew attention to the way the appellant’s illness plea had been considered by the authorities. It noted that, although the appellant claimed absence on account of illness, he had failed to establish that his ailment was continuous or so serious that it made it impossible for him to attend duty.
The Court highlighted that the treatment taken at Patna was only as an outdoor patient. The record did not show that he had been admitted in any hospital or that any doctor had advised him not to join duty during the disputed period. There was similarly no clear medical evidence that his condition required prolonged absence.
On the alleged mental ailment treated at Ranchi, the Court observed that the material produced was only a prescription. Even this prescription did not indicate a chronic or serious condition that would justify long non‑attendance of duty. Thus, the Court concluded that the medical records did not support his claim that illness compelled him to stay away from his post for such a long period.
The Divisional authorities had also emphasised the appellant’s conduct pattern. The Concurring Authority, while affirming the dismissal, recorded that the appellant “voluntarily came and went back whenever he wished”. This behaviour was considered incompatible with the discipline expected of a member of the police force. The Division Bench found this conclusion borne out by the materials on record.
The Court therefore accepted the finding of fact by the Inquiry Officer that the appellant used to come and go according to his choice. It held that this factual finding had the support of evidence and was not unfounded. In such a situation, the conclusion of unauthorized absence taken by the Disciplinary Authority could not be labelled perverse.
On the question of procedural fairness, the Court found no defect. Since the appellant had participated in the proceedings, cross‑examined witnesses and replied to the show‑cause notice, the basic safeguards of a departmental inquiry had been met. The Single Judge’s view that there was no procedural violation was endorsed.
The argument regarding disproportionate punishment was also rejected. The Court noted that, considering the nature of service and the requirement of strict discipline in the police force, the punishment of dismissal could not be said to be excessive or unwarranted “on the facts of the present case”. Importantly, the Court did not find any mitigating circumstances strong enough to reduce the penalty.
In substance, the Division Bench held that the appellant had, of his own volition, chosen not to return to work despite directions to do so, including during an important national event such as the Parliamentary Elections. This conduct showed that he did not deserve to remain a member of a disciplined force.
Having found no error in the inquiry process, the findings, or the punishment imposed, the Patna High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the dismissal from service.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government and police employees who remain absent from duty on the plea of illness. The Patna High Court has made it clear that merely producing prescriptions or claiming sickness is not enough. The illness must be proved to be serious enough to prevent attendance, with proper medical records.
The decision also underscores that members of the police force are held to a higher standard of discipline. Ignoring orders to rejoin duty, especially during events such as Parliamentary Elections, can be treated as grave misconduct. Courts are unlikely to interfere with dismissal in such cases if a fair departmental inquiry has been held.
For employees, the case shows the risk of taking long, unapproved leave and then relying on weak medical papers. For departments, it confirms that where the inquiry is fair and findings are based on evidence, the High Court will not lightly interfere with the penalty chosen by the Disciplinary Authority.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the appellant’s long absence from duty could be justified on the ground of illness so as to invalidate the finding of unauthorized absence and disobedience of orders.
Answer: No. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove any continuous or chronic ailment preventing him from joining duty, and the finding of unauthorized absence was supported by evidence. -
Issue: Whether the departmental inquiry and punishment of dismissal suffered from procedural irregularity or disproportionality warranting interference by the Patna High Court.
Answer: No. The Court found that the appellant had full opportunity to participate and cross‑examine witnesses, that the findings were not perverse, and that dismissal was an appropriate penalty in the facts of the case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Mithlesh Kumar Pathak Vs. The Union of India and others, 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 97 (relied on by the appellant to argue disproportionate punishment; the Court did not find it helpful to disturb the dismissal in this case).
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No.1485 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12182 of 2012
Case Title: Ramesh Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra
Citation: 2019 (2) PLJR 908
Advocates: Mrs. Punita Kumari Singh, Advocate and Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, A.C. to AAG‑3 for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging departmental dismissal order of a police constable for unauthorized absence and disobedience of orders
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment Link
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
