1 CGHC010376222022 2026:CGHC:36627 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8101 of 2022  Om Prakash Singh S/o Shri Trilok Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Rishabh Nagar, 9/5, Phase-Ii, Durg District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Jail And Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Jail And Reformatory Services, Chhattisgarh, Headquarter At Sector-19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.) 3. Jail Superintendent Central Jail, Durg District Durg (C.G.) 4. Jail Superintendent District Jail, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 19/07/2022 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 13/05/2021 (Annexure P/2). 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem- fit and appropriate. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.19 17:04:51 +0530 2 to the respondent authorities and direct them to reinstate the petitioner in service, on the post of Prison Guard, with all the consequential benefits, in accordance with law.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Jail Warder on 14.12.2006. The petitioner met with an unfortunate accident and suffered severe spinal and knee injuries on 25.10.2011. The petitioner could not resume his duties after accident and he remained absent for considerable period. The petitioner applied for medical leave on 11.01.2013 and went for medical treatment for his spinal injuries. It is pleaded that on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner, he did not join services from 30.12.2011 to 31.12.2012 and from 14.01.2013 to 16.09.2018, total 6 years 8 months and 5 days. During said period, the petitioner underwent surgeries etc. and suffered 50% permanent disability. When the petitioner failed to join his duties he was served with a show-cause notice on 17.09.2018, which was duly replied on 19.09.2018. An article of charge was issued on 18.10.2018 by the disciplinary authority making allegation of willful absence from duties, which was replied by the petitioner on 31.10.2018. The disciplinary authority appointed the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer on 01.11.2018. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, petitioner submitted all medical documents including disability certificate on 28.01.2019 and this fact is evident from the order-sheets of the departmental enquiry. The inquiry officer completed the inquiry and submitted its report before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 13.05.2021. A departmental appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2022. Against both the orders, this petition has been 3 preferred. 3. Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocate would contend that the absence of petitioner was neither willful nor deliberate. He would contend that the petitioner could not join his duties due to his medical condition. He would submit that the petitioner remained bedridden on account of spinal injuries and this fact is evident from medical documents and disability certificate issued by the competent medical board. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 and Chhel Singh vs. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 166. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for more than 6 years. He would submit that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not resume his duties nor intimated the department. He would contend that in the departmental enquiry proper opportunity of hearing was afforded and there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. He would contend that procedure contemplated under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules and Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 were followed and there is concurrent finding recorded by the authorities, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. It is well settled principle of law that findings recorded in the departmental enquiry can be interfered when the authority inflicted a penalty was not competent, the procedure contemplated in rules was not followed and principles of natural justice have not been complied with. 7. In the present case, there is no such allegation. Mr. Siddiqui has argued that though the petitioner remained absent from his duty for period of more than 6 years, but his absence was neither willful nor deliberate and there is no finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in this regard. 8. Perusal of documents would show that the petitioner met with an accident on 25.10.2011 and suffered spinal and knee injuries. The petitioner submitted those documents before the inquiry officer and this fact is evident from the note-sheet of inquiry officer dated 28.01.2019 and disability certificate was also placed on record, but those documents were not considered either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. It is not a case of the respondents that those documents are forged or fabricated. It appears that there was sufficient reason for the petitioner to remain absent from services. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) has held that if the absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence can not be held to be wilful and the employee cannot be held guilty of misconduct. It is also held that neither the inquiry officer nor the appellate authority found the absence to be wilful, despite the specific assertion that he was attending duty but was not permitted to sign the attendance register. Relevant para 16 to 20 are reproduced herein-below :- 16. In the case of the appellant referring to 5 unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. 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 cannot be held to be wilful. 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. 18. 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 the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. 19. 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 that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and 6 wrongly held the appellant guilty. 20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial review in a departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 95, para 25) "25. 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." 10. In the matter of Chhel Singh (supra), it is held that the inquiry officer has to conclude that the absence of employee was willful and deliberate and the medical documents submitted by the employee were not held forged or 7 fabricated or obtained for any consideration. Relevant para 12 is reproduced herein-below :- “12. From the plain reading of the charges we find that the main allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately 10 and ½ months), for which no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority. In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate. The inquiry officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was wilful and deliberate. It is neither case of the disciplinary authority nor the inquiry officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.” 11. In the case at hand the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority or the appellate authority have nowhere held that the absence of the petitioner was willful or deliberate. The medical documents submitted by the petitioner have not been 8 considered, and at the same time, there is no finding to the effect that those documents are fabricated or forged. The petitioner due to his medical conditions could not resume his duties for considerable period and this fact is evident from disability certificate issued by the competent medical board. 12. Having considered the facts discussed-above and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) and Chhel Singh (supra), the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in services forthwith with all consequential benefits. 13. In result, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant