1 2026:CGHC:26812-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 532 of 2026 1 - Kaushik Behra S/o Shri Hajaru Behra Aged About 46 Years (Terminated Constable -1210), R/o Village- Amapali, Police Station - Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police, Head Office Of The Chhattisgarh Police, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Assistant Director General Of Police (Administration) Head Office Of The Chhattisgarh Police, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Lalbag, Jagadalpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintendent of Police, District - Bastar -Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri Roop Naik, Advocate. For State : Shri Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. AG. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 01.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the impugned order dated 02.04.2026 passed by learned INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.01 18:28:10 +0530 2 Single Judge in WPS No.1488 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and after completing his basic training in the 5th Battalion, Jagdalpur he was posted at Police Camp Jiramgaon, P.S. Darbha, District Bastar, alleged to be a naxal affected area, however, he remained absent from duty from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019 on certain grounds i.e. death of his uncle and performance of last rites; his own ili health; his wife's pregnancy and other family difficulties, and he could not intimate the superior authorities during that period. Charge-sheet dated 07.02.2019 was issued alleging unauthorized absence for about 213 days in violation of Rule 64(2)4) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and Rule 7 of the Civil Services Conduct Rules, along with an allegation that he was a habitual leave taker and unfit for service. Departmental Enquiry was instituted in which the enquiry officer submitted its report on 21.05.2019 and proved the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.10.2019, the respondent No.5 imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.4, which came to be rejected on 30.09.2020, affirming the order of removal. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a further appeal/mercy petition before the respondent No. 2 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and disproportionate punishment. The same was rejected by order dated 29.09.2021, which was communicated to the petitioner on 07.01.2023. 3 3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid concurrent orders and imposing major penalty of removal from service, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition. Hence this writ appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that learned Single Judge has not considered the entire facts in its proper perspective. The reasons assigned by the employee for his long absent from duty was not willful and deliberate. His absence was on account of death of his uncle, his own health condition and due to pregnancy of his wife. Willful absence from duty after expiry of leave renders the government servant liable only for disciplinary action. Unauthorized absence does not constitute willful misconduct. The further ground of challenge by the appellant is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. According to him, no proper show cause notice was served before initiating the proceedings. According to him unless the notice is properly served on the delinquent in respect of the enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that there has been proper service of notice in respect of the departmental enquiry This, according to the petitioner again amounts to non-granting of proper opportunity of hearing. Thus, the departmental enquiry deserves to be vitiated on the ground of the same being in contravention to the principles of natural justice. He would further submit that to justify major penalty for unauthorized absence, there must be an express finding that such absence was willful and intentional, in absence of which, extreme penalty of removal from service is unsustainable. Rule 24(1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (in short, Leave 4 Rules) provides specific regulatory framework for treating period of absence after expiry of leave as dies-non. Thus, punishment of removal from service is too harsh. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the writ appellant be punished with suitable minor punishment. 5 Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and also on perusal of records, what is apparently undisputed is the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable and posted at Police Camp Jiramgaon, PS Darbha. The petitioner continued to work on the said post when abruptly remained absent from 13.06.2018 to 12.01.2019 without proper sanction and permission of leave for a considerable long period of time. The petitioner was also issued with various notices and memos asking him to report for duty but he failed to report back or furnish any satisfactory explanation. Such prolonged and continues absence in a disciplined force like Police particularly in a naxal affected area amounts to gross misconduct. The department had also taken all necessary steps to ensure that the petitioner reports for duty and for which he has been issued with regular notices asking to report for duty. The petitioner was served with charge sheet and enquiry officer was duly appointed and entire proceedings were conducted in his presence. The charges were found proved on the basis of evidence led and only thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which in the opinion of this court, cannot be said to be arbitrary or harsh punishment. What also needs to be considered is that, the petitioner undoubtedly is a police personnel. As is well settled that great amount of discipline is expected from a uniformed 5 force particularly the police personals whose services are required by the State for the proper and smooth maintenance of the law and order situation in that particular locality/district. 6 A person working on the post of Constable in the police department remaining absent for a considerable long period of time with no satisfactory explanation cannot be termed to be a minor misconduct on his part. It is also not an act which has to be leniently viewed particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner belongs to the uniformed force where the element of discipline and the conduct of a police personnel is always expected to be kept at a high order. 7 Considering the relevant materials on record, the track record of unauthorized absence of the appellant from duty and the submissions of the parties tested on the ground of judicial review, neither conducting of the enquiry proceedings can be said to be in violation of principle of natural justice, nor the findings arrived at during the course of inquiry is based on no evidence. Appreciation of evidence and the findings of fact in a disciplinary inquiry is not within the scope of judicial review unless the findings are wholly perverse or inference drawn is not based upon any material evidence. 8 Even otherwise, in writ appeal no interference is warranted in the order passed by the Single Judge unless palpable infirmities are being shown in the impugned order. From perusal of entire material placed on record, we do not find any such infirmities or irregularities in the order passed by learned Single Judge which warrants interference of this court. 6 9 Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder