Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court quashed the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in a case concerning disciplinary action against an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer (ACIO) of the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The petitioner had been removed from service on charges of unauthorized absence, a decision upheld by the tribunal. The High Court found that multiple periods of absence had been regularized through official orders and directed the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty, restricting the review to a specific period of unregularized absence.

The petitioner was serving as an ACIO when he was issued a chargesheet under Rule 14(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, for alleged unauthorized absence. Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order for his removal from service. His appeal and revision petitions were rejected, prompting him to challenge the decision before the tribunal. The tribunal dismissed his application, leading him to approach the High Court.

The charges against the petitioner alleged multiple instances of unauthorized absence beyond granted leave periods. The articles of charge included failure to report for duty after completing a training course, proceeding on leave without prior approval, and disregarding prior warnings regarding absences. The petitioner contended that these charges were not sustainable as several periods of absence had already been regularized by an office order dated December 29, 2010. He submitted that this regularization negated the basis for disciplinary action.

The petitioner further argued that he had provided medical certificates for specific periods of absence and that the tribunal had not considered these documents. He also claimed that the disciplinary inquiry suffered from procedural irregularities, including reliance on a field inquiry report that was not part of the original chargesheet.

The High Court examined the tribunal’s findings and the disciplinary proceedings. It noted that several periods of absence referenced in the charges had been regularized. The judgment recorded, "It is clear that Articles I to IV of the Articles of Charge, in fact, are unsustainable. The only allegation that remains against the petitioner, therefore, is of unauthorized absence for the period 16 August 2010 till 26 October 2010."

The petitioner submitted that he had furnished medical certificates covering the remaining period of unregularized absence. The court observed that the tribunal did not sufficiently examine these records or consider whether the petitioner’s justification for absence had merit. The court also noted that the disciplinary inquiry relied on a field inquiry report that was not listed as part of the original chargesheet. The judgment stated, "The reliance, therefore, by the Inquiry Officer on the Field Inquiry Report was entirely misplaced, as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to deal therewith."

On the question of whether removal from service was an appropriate penalty, the court examined the principle of proportionality. The judgment recorded, "It is trite that the punishment imposed on a delinquent official must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against him." The court referred to State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, noting that "Once an absence has been regularized, it cannot, any longer, be regarded as unauthorized." The court observed that as most of the absences had been regularized, only the remaining unregularized period could be considered for disciplinary action, and the proportionality of the penalty had to be reassessed.

The High Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the case, restricting the scope of reconsideration to the period from August 16, 2010, to October 26, 2010. The judgment stated, "The remit of the Disciplinary Authority shall be limited to considering Article IV of the Articles of Charge, specifically with respect to the allegation of unauthorized absence for the period from 16 August 2010 to 26 October 2010."

The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to present additional explanations or medical documents related to this period. The Disciplinary Authority was instructed to assess whether the penalty of removal from service was proportionate to the remaining charge. The judgment stated, "The Disciplinary Authority would also have to consider whether, for unauthorized absence from duty for the aforesaid period, the petitioner deserves to be awarded a punishment as extreme as removal from service."

If the Disciplinary Authority decided to reduce the penalty, the court recorded that reinstatement should follow but without back wages. However, the petitioner would be entitled to seniority and notional pay fixation from the date of his removal. The judgment stated, "In the event the Disciplinary Authority reduces the punishment awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service, but without back wages, though his seniority and pay would be notionally fixed as if he had continued in service."

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions and made no order as to costs. The judgment stated, "Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal stands quashed and set aside and the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, albeit with no orders as to costs."

Case Title: Lalit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1546/2020
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

[Read/Download order]