CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) ANESH KUMAR ..Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 07.07.2026 Pronounced on : 15.07.2026 Uploaded on : 17.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Vanshika Daaria, Advocate Mr. Dushyant Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for respondents. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 20.01.2014, whereby the petitioner, a constable (water carrier) in the Central Reserve Police Force, has been removed from service. The order of removal has been affirmed in appeal, revision, and mercy petition. Brief facts of the case 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (Water Carrier) in the Central Reserve Police Force on 09.04.2011. After completion of his training, he was posted with 51 Battalion, CRPF. There is nothing on record to suggest that during the initial period of service the petitioner had ever been proceeded against MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -2- departmentally or that his conduct was found to be unsatisfactory. On 19.02.2013, the petitioner proceeded on 20 days sanctioned earned leave for his native village and was required to report back on expiry thereof. Before he could rejoin his duties, he came to be arrested on 11.03.2013 in FIR No. 42 of 2013 dated 09.03.2013 registered under Sections 377/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. He remained in police custody from 11.03.2013 till 13.03.2013 and thereafter in judicial custody until 06.12.2013, when he was released on bail. The petitioner was ultimately acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu on 13.02.2014. While the petitioner continued to remain in judicial custody, the respondents issued a memorandum of charges dated 31.05.2013. Two articles of charge were framed. The first alleged unauthorised absence from duty and concealment of the fact that the petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The second charge that despite being in custody, the petitioner had forwarded false medical certificates dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 to justify extension of leave. On 17.07.2013, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. Thereafter, communications were addressed to the petitioner in jail requiring him to indicate the name of a defence assistant and to answer the questionnaire prepared by the Enquiry Officer. The statements of departmental witnesses were also recorded during the period when the petitioner remained incarcerated. After the petitioner was released on bail on 06.12.2013, he immediately reported back to the Battalion and joined duty on 16.12.2013. Instead of permitting him to resume normal duties, he was placed under suspension. Shortly thereafter, on 24.12.2013, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding both charges proved. Acting upon the enquiry report, the MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -3- disciplinary authority passed the order dated 20.01.2014 removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal after his acquittal, specifically contending that his absence could never be treated as wilful and that the finding regarding fake medical certificates was unsupported by evidence and that the acquittal recorded by the criminal court deserved due consideration. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2014, revision was dismissed on 09.06.2014 and mercy petition was dismissed in 2015. Hence, the present civil writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by enquiry officer on the basis of which punishment order has been passed is without any factual or legal backing. 4. He further contends that the unauthorized absence as per charge No.1 cannot legally survive once it is admitted fact that the petitioner remained in judicial custody throughout the relevant period. 5. He further contends that as per the second charge that the petitioner managed to send three forged medical certificates dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013, and 09.04.2013 to the Battalion with a view to obtain extension of leave, the medical certificates were never submitted by him since he was in judicial custody. Further, that the principle of natural justice were never followed since the departmental inquiry was conducted during the period the petitioner was in judicial custody. Further, that even the Appellate and Revisional Authority did not appreciate the facts of the case of the petitioner, he therefore prays that the present petition be allowed and impugned order dated 20.01.2014 be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contend that impugned order dated 20.01.2014 is self-speaking and since the petitioner MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -4- was intentionally absent from duty and concealed the fact of his arrest from the respondents and further for the extension of leave, forged medical certificates were submitted by him for which the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 20.01.2014 is rightly imposed. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. 8. A perusal of the file shows that there were two charges against the petitioner for which penalty of removal from service is imposed upon the petitioner. The first pertains to unauthorized absence from duty coupled with concealing the fact of arrest and judicial custody of the petitioner. The second charge is that during such custody, false medical certificates were forwarded to the Battalion for extension of leave. The punishment is imposed by relying upon the finding recorded by inquiry officer. As per the inquiry report, the petitioner overstayed the sanctioned leave and remained absent without authority and he failed to intimate the department regarding his arrest. And once the petitioner did not report back after expiry of leave, the misconduct stood established. 9. Admittedly and undisputedly, the petitioner had proceeded on sanctioned leave and during this period, he was arrested and thereafter remained in judicial custody till 06.12.2013, which shows that the absence was not willful, deliberate, and intentional. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, 2012(3) SCC 178, held that mere absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful, and if allegation of MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -5- unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that absence is willful. And in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 11. The relevant paras of Krushnakant B. Parmar’s case are reproduced as under: “16. The question whether 'unauthorised absence from duty' amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful. 18. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful.There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 20. In the present case the Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold the absence is wilful; the disciplinary authority as also MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -6- the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty. 21. The question relating to jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review in a Departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.B. Bijlani v. Union of India and others reported in 2006(2) S.C.T. 454 : (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein this Court held: "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with" 22. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was wilful, no such finding has been given by the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -7- brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3rd October, 1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of Telephone calls dated 29th September, 1995, etc. but such defence and evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty.” 12. In view of the above referred to judgment, the absence of petitioner was not willful or intentional since during the period of alleged absence, the petitioner was in judicial custody. 13. The present is a case where inquiry officer did not even take into consideration the fact that the absence of the petitioner was because of his arrest and was not willful and intentional. 14. So far as the second charge is concerned, i.e. regarding the submission of three forged medical certificates by the petitioner for obtaining the extension of leave, the decision in that also is very vague and without application of mind since there is nothing on record to show that the forged certificates are submitted by the petitioner. 15. A perusal of file further shows that a questionnaire was sent by the inquiry officer to the petitioner which is attached with the present writ petition as Annexure P-7. 16. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: “Q.5. Why did you not give any information and concealed that you found arrested in case under Section 377/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act by State Police, Police Station, Khetri Nagar, Rajashtan? Answer:- Sir I was innocent and I was suddenly implicated in a false case as a consequence of which my MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -8- mental condition got spoiled and because I was confined in jail and therefore I was unable to given any information to Bn Office and I sincerely regret that. Q.7. Despite being in judicial custody you submitted medical certificates dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013 or 18.04.2013 to mislead the office what would you say with regard to the same? Answer:- Sir, I have already informed you that I was falsely implicated in a case and I was arrested on 11.03.2013 in a false case by police and after my arrest I was kept in jail and after 11.03.2014 neither did I receive any letter sent to me at my residential address nor did I sent any letter of any type to Bn. Office and I do not have any information with regard to any medical certificate sent to the office of Bn. Because I was confined in District Jail since 11.03.2013.” 17. A perusal of the above specifically shows that the petitioner never admitted that the medical certificates dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013, 09.04.2013 were sent by the petitioner. 18. Further perusal of inquiry report which is attached with the present writ petition as Annexure P-9 shows that witness No.2 supported the case of the petitioner. 19. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: “2.Witness no. 2 95170279 ASI, Subhash Chander, ASI Subhash Chander Stated in his statement that force serial No. 115056356 Constable/Water Career Anesh Kumar was absent from leave w.e.f. 11.03.2013 and he was asked vide letter dated on 13.03.2013 to memo report on duty and after that at 11.03.2013 one fax was received in which the accused sought extension of leave of 10 days citing pain in stomach as a reason which was considered MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -9- by competent authority and then after letter dated 18.03.2013, 23.03.2013, he was asked to report on duty on immediate basis but accused submitted a medical certificate on 08.03.2013 to 21.03.2013 and 22.03.2013 to 01.04.2013 and after that the SHO Police Station Khetri Nagar, Rajasthan informed the office vide letter dated 09.05.2013 and 31.05.2013 that a criminal case no. 42/13 under Section 377/34 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act was lodged at Police Station, Khetri Nagar and he was arrested on 11.03.2013 and he is in judicial custody since 13.03.2013. Consequently, the medical certificates dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 were got verified from the issuing authorities and they informed that some other person got prepared these documents by telling his name Anesh Kumar. Thus, charge no. 2 is proved. (As per statement of witness no. 2, page no. 28, Ex. 1, 2, 7, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 17, 28(1), 28(2).” 20. The relevant portion of the impugned order [para 8 (d) (e)], also shows that the medical certificates were never sent by the petitioner. The same are reproduced as under: “d. Accused Constable Anesh Kumar sent copies of medical certificates issued on his name of wrong methods by medical officers of Govt. GDK Hospital, Homeopathic medical officer RRS Bargaon and medical officer, Govt. Ayurvedik Hospital Shheltal, Jh. Rajasthan dated 22.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 9.04.2013 whereas actually at during this time the accused was in judicial custody at sub jail, Khetri District Jhunjhunu, Rajashtan. (As per statement of witness no. 2 and Ex. 13, 16 and 17). e. Medical Officer Govt. GDK Hospital, Homeopathic and Medical Officer RRS Centre, Bargaon and Medical Officer Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Cheeltal, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan said that the medical certificate were issued by MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -10- them but the same has be got issued by some other person by telling his name Anesh Kumar. (As per statement of witness no. 2 and Ex. 27, 28 (1), 28(2)).” 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.B. Bijlani v. Union of India and others reported in 2006(2) S.C.T. 454 has held as under: “It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 22. In view of the above referred to judgment though jurisdiction of this Court in judicial review is limited but certain admitted, undisputed and factual aspects cannot be ignored by the Courts. 23. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the two charges for which the punishment of removal from service is imposed upon the petitioner are not proved as per the record. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-23799-2015 (O&M) -11- 24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.01.2014 is set aside. 25. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 20.01.2014 with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that the consequential benefits to be granted to the petitioner would be notional only. 26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 15.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.17 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.