Patna High Court Overturns Dismissal of CRPF Constable, Finds Punishment Disproportionate to Absence

In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has overturned the dismissal of a CRPF Constable, Sumit Kumar, emphasizing that the punishment was disproportionate to the conduct of the appellant. The decision came in response to a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging the dismissal order and subsequent rejections of appeals and revisions.

Brief Facts:

Sumit Kumar, a Constable in the CRPF, had initially requested earned leave on May 14, 2012, citing his mother’s terminal illness. Despite being directed to report to the Unit Headquarters on May 21, 2012, Kumar was found to be absent and declared an absconder. Consequently, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on October 26, 2013. Kumar’s appeals and revisions against this decision were rejected, leading him to file a writ petition which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Dissatisfied, Kumar pursued an LPA, which was the subject of the recent judgment.

Contentions of the Appellant:

Kumar’s counsel argued that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the disproportionate nature of the punishment given the appellant’s genuine circumstances. The absence of Kumar was explained by his dire personal situation—his mother’s battle with cancer—which he contended should have been considered when assessing the appropriateness of the punishment.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents contended that Kumar’s prolonged absence—from May 23, 2012, to December 4, 2012—justified the initiation of departmental inquiry and subsequent dismissal. They argued that the disciplinary measures and the learned Single Judge’s decision were legally sound and justified.

Observations of the Court:

The Patna High Court noted that Kumar had provided documents substantiating his mother’s cancer treatment, which had not been considered by the respondent authorities or the learned Single Judge. The Court recognized that while Kumar was absent from duty, his absence was linked to exceptional personal circumstances beyond his control.

The Court remarked that the absence should not be equated with willful or unauthorized absence, emphasizing that the dismissal was disproportionate to the appellant’s conduct. The Court’s review highlighted that the severity of the punishment did not align with the nature of the appellant’s absence.

Decision:

The Patna High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Kumar had made a compelling case for interference with the dismissal order. The Court’s ruling underscores the need for proportionality in disciplinary actions, especially when personal circumstances significantly affect an employee’s conduct.

Case Title: Sumit Kumar vs The Union of India & Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Justice P. B. Bajanthri Khatim Reza and Hon’ble Justice Alok Kumar Pandey

Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 617 of 2019

Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Mrigank Mauli

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. S. D. Sanjay

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of this development and other legal matters, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others interested in legal and political affairs.