1 CGHC010225772026 2026:CGHC:32492-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 628 of 2026 Ajeet Kumar Katiya S/o Shri Beer Singh Katiya Aged About 36 Years R/o C/o Shri Raja Bhaiya Dubey, Behind Rest House, Near M P E B Office, Sihora, Tehsil - Sihora, District - Jabalpur Madhya Pradesh (Petitioner) ... Appellant versus 1 - Central Reserve Police Force Through Its Director General, Directorate General Office, Block No. 1, C. G. O. Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003., Delhi (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Range Office, Chandrayan Gutta, Keshogiri, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500005., District - Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Range Office, Chandrayan Gutta, Keshogiri, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500005 (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Commandant 212th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force Open Jail Complex, Masgaon, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Manee Ram Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Niraj Baghel, CGC holding brief of Mr. R.K. Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Amrito Das, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Manee Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Niraj Baghel, learned Central Government Counsel holding brief of Mr. R.K. Mishra, learend Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for respondents/UOI on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 34 days in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1968 of 2017 (Ajeet Kumar Katiya Vs. Central Reserve Police Force & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant / writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (GD) in 212 Battalion, CRPF. He remained on leave for period of 3 30 days from 06.02.2014 to 08.03.2014 with permission and due to medical problems, he could not join the services after said period. On 13.02.2015, the writ petitioner was informed by Police Station Themi, Madhya Pradesh that he has been terminated from services. The writ petitioner approached the department and came to know that ex-parte departmental inquiry was conducted against him and major penalty of dismissal from services has been inflicted against him by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 13.02.2015. The writ petitioner preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.08.2015. The writ petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.05.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner / appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 1968 of 2017, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25.03.2026. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended that the appellant, who was serving as Constable (GD) in 212 Battalion, CRPF, could not resume his duties after expiry of the sanctioned leave period due to serious medical complications suffered by him and his wife, who was then pregnant. The absence of the appellant was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to unavoidable 4 circumstances beyond his control. It is argued that the authorities failed to consider the genuine medical grounds and mechanically proceeded against the appellant by conducting an ex-parte departmental enquiry and imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing during the enquiry proceedings, and the disciplinary authority mechanically accepted the enquiry report without considering the explanation and circumstances leading to the alleged overstay of leave. 7. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further submitted that even assuming the allegations of unauthorized absence to be established, the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate and shockingly excessive in the facts of the present case. It is argued that overstaying of leave on account of medical reasons cannot be treated as a grave misconduct warranting the extreme penalty of dismissal, particularly when there was no allegation of indiscipline or any other misconduct against the appellant. The authorities ought to have adopted a compassionate approach and considered the appellant's medical condition and personal circumstances before imposing a major penalty. It is further submitted that the appellate and revisional authorities also failed to exercise their jurisdiction properly and dismissed the proceedings mechanically without examining the proportionality of the punishment. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and 5 the punishment of dismissal/removal from service imposed upon the appellant deserves to be quashed or suitably modified. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/UOI opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in the present intra-court appeal. It is contended that the appellant, being a member of a disciplined force like the CRPF, was expected to maintain the highest standards of discipline and was under an obligation to report back for duty after expiry of the sanctioned leave period. However, despite expiry of the sanctioned leave from 06.02.2014 to 08.03.2014, the appellant failed to join his duties and remained absent for a prolonged period without any prior permission or intimation to the competent authority. Therefore, the action of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service was strictly in accordance with the provisions of the CRPF Act and Rules. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant was granted sufficient opportunity during the departmental proceedings, but he failed to participate, resulting in an ex-parte enquiry. It is argued that the appellant cannot take advantage of his own failure to appear before the enquiry authority and subsequently allege violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with law, and after considering the material available on record, the 6 disciplinary authority rightly arrived at the conclusion that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved. The appellate and revisional authorities have also independently considered the matter and found no ground for interference. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the disciplinary action, and therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material available on record. 10. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the order of dismissal from service, rejection of departmental appeal and revision, has been dismissed. 11. The undisputed facts are that the appellant was appointed as Constable (GD) in 212 Battalion, CRPF and was granted leave for a period of 30 days from 06.02.2014 to 08.03.2014. However, after expiry of the sanctioned leave period, the appellant did not report back for duty. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against him, in which, according to the respondents, despite sufficient opportunity, the appellant failed to participate, resulting in an ex-parte enquiry. The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, imposed the penalty of dismissal 7 from service vide order dated 13.02.2015. The departmental appeal and revision preferred by the appellant were also dismissed. 12. The principal contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant is that the absence of the appellant was not intentional but was due to medical reasons and the illness of his wife, who was pregnant at the relevant point of time. It is further contended that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of overstaying leave and that the authorities failed to adopt a compassionate approach. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant, being a member of a disciplined force, was expected to maintain strict discipline and was required to report back after expiry of sanctioned leave. It is contended that unauthorized absence from duty by a member of the CRPF is a serious misconduct affecting the functioning and discipline of the force. It is further submitted that the appellant failed to substantiate any sufficient cause for remaining absent and the punishment imposed is commensurate with the misconduct proved in the departmental enquiry. 14. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was a member of a 8 disciplined armed force and was expected to maintain a high degree of discipline and responsibility. The fact that the appellant remained absent beyond the sanctioned leave period is not disputed. The explanation sought to be offered by the appellant regarding his medical condition and the illness of his wife has been considered by the authorities, but the same was not found sufficient to justify such prolonged absence. 15. It is settled law that in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusion for that of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or the proceedings suffer from violation of principles of natural justice. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, has held that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision itself but against the decision-making process, and the Court cannot interfere merely because another view is possible. The Court further held that interference with punishment is permissible only when the punishment is so disproportionate to the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the Court. 17. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Ayub Naz, (2006) 1 SCC 589, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unauthorized absence by a member of a disciplined force is a serious 9 misconduct and the question of punishment has to be considered keeping in view the nature of service and the requirement of discipline. 18. Further, in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that absence from duty, particularly in a disciplined service, cannot be viewed lightly and an employee is required to establish sufficient cause for such absence. 19. In Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that members of armed forces and paramilitary forces are required to maintain a higher standard of discipline and unauthorized absence may justify severe punishment. 20. In the present case, the departmental proceedings were conducted against the appellant, and the appellant failed to establish before the competent authorities that his absence was supported by sufficient cause. The plea of medical hardship, though urged before this Court, cannot by itself justify interference when the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority have concurrently considered the matter. 21. As regards the contention that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate, it is to be noted that the appellant was a member of the CRPF, where discipline is of paramount importance. The absence of a member of such a force without authorization has 10 serious implications. The punishment imposed cannot be said to be so disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of the Court so as to warrant interference. 22. The contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice also does not merit acceptance. The appellant was given opportunity in the departmental proceedings, and merely because the enquiry proceeded ex-parte due to his non-participation, the proceedings cannot be declared illegal. An employee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own failure to participate in the enquiry. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The findings recorded by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional authority, and the learned Single Judge do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference in the present appeal. 24. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra