Madhya Pradesh High Court
Karan Singh Maravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 12079 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
KARAN SINGH MARAVI S/O LATE SHRI NAVAL SINGH
MARAVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
KANDWA, NIWAS MANDLA, POST AND TEHSIL NIWAS
DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIDYA SHANKAR MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPLAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT (POLICE), VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. B SAMVAY 8TH VAHINI VISHBAL CHHINDWARA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved of order dated
30/12/2015 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Commandant, 8th Battalion, SAF,
Chhindwara whereby petitioner was visited with penalty of removal from the
service on account of unauthorised absence from 03/05/2014 to 01/08/2015 for
a period of 455 days and that order has been affirmed in the departmental
appeal by the concerned Inspector General of Police, SAF Range, Jabalpur
vide order dated 01/02/2016.
2. Petitioner's contention is that his unauthorised absence was for a reason
as his wife was suffering from problem of successive abortion, therefore, in
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushna Kant
B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178, absence for
a reason cannot be said to be a wilful absence, thus, in light of the said
judgment it is submitted that 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.
3. Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, in his turn, submits that
the absence is wilful. Unauthorised absence is a major misconduct under the
Police Regulations.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushna Kant B. Parmar
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that absence from duty without
any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it
does not always mean a wilful. There may be different eventualities due to
which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstance
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.
5. In the present case, however, facts are different. Neither petitioner was
suffering from suffering from illness or had met with an accident or was
hospitalised. Even the medical documents of his wife as contained in
Annexure-P/1 though reveal that she was under treatment and had undergone
Sonography on 23 June, 2013 and thereafter was under treatment at Yoyale
Hospital and Research Centre, Garha Railway Crossing, Jabalpur but no where
it is shown that she was under hospitalisation till 03/05/2014 when she was
diagnosed with Premature Infertinity. There is no discharge card available on
record to show as to when petitioner's wife was discharged from the Nursing
Home. When these facts are cumulatively taken into consideration, then the
ratio of law laid down in the case of Krushna Kant B. Parmar (supra) is of
no assistance to the petitioner, his case is different. His unauthorised absence is
from 02/05/2014 to 01/08/2015 for which there is no explanation within the
terms of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Krushna Kant B. Parmar (supra). Thus, when the ratio of law is that in the
matter of disciplinary proceedings, intervention of the Court should be minimal
and unless some mala fides are shown or lack of authority vested in the person
who passed the order indulgence cannot be shown.
7. At this stage, petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the
Coordinate Bench in the case of R.K. Dixit Vs. State of M.P. and another
(W.P. No.8268/2013) decided on 19th July, 2023 where matter was remitted
back to the authority for imposing some other penalty. There the facts of the
case were different. Therein that petitioner was guilty of not executing the order
of transfer and had remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of five years,
under those facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the illness of the
petitioner himself and relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Krushna Kant B. Parmar (supra), matter was remitted to the
disciplinary authority. But, in the present case facts are different. Petitioner has
failed to bring on record any document of his own illness, hospitalisation or of
meeting accident, thus, the facts being different, ratio of this order of
Coordinate Bench will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
8. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
