IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7439 of 2004 BRAJESHWAR PRASAD SONOF SRI NANHKU PRASAD OF VILLAGE NAZIRGANJ. P.O. ARA CHAUK, P.S. TWON DISTRICT ARA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ZONAL I.G. BHAGALPUR ZONE, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, EASTERN RANGE, BHAGALPUR. 5. THE S. P. BHAGALPUR. ----------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Pranav Kumar For the Respondents :- Mr. Chhote Lal Narain Singh, S.C. I. ------- 3 28/07/2010 Petitioner was dismissed from service after having served about 27 years with the respondents. He was appointed as a Constable on 1.8.1975 and went on leave on 3.7. 1993 for about six days but never reported back after expiry of the period of leave. In fact, the allegation is that he remained absent for 2228 days. It was totally unauthorized absence. This compelled the authorities to proceed against the petitioner and hold an enquiry for imposition of appropriate punishment in this regard. Absence from duty for the number of days indicated above is not in dispute. Therefore, the disciplinary authority decided to impose punishment of dismissal against the - 2 - petitioner. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that he had valid reasons not to report back for duty. He was suffering from mental problems and disease which was identified as anxiety neurosis and for which he took treatment from one Dr. Tushar Kanti Ganguly. Only after he recovered from the long treatment that he reported back to the respondents. There is some material to show that the defence or the stand of the petitioner was verified and it was found to be true. The defence put up by the petitioner was not a pretext. If that be so, then it is not a case where punishment of dismissal ought to have been passed. Though the appellate authority has taken note of these facts but he has also opined that the kind of illness and the prolonged period of absence of the petitioner has made him un-worthy of retention in service because his usefulness is lost as a constable. That could be true but the question is if the petitioner was unfortunate to suffer from the problem or the disease of the kind for which there is evidence in support thereof, then it cannot be said that the absence of the - 3 - petitioner, even though prolonged, was willful and deliberate. It was a case where the authorities ought to have taken a sympathetic view of the matter and ought to have passed any other order of punishment except punishment of dismissal. In the given facts of the case and the evidence brought on record, Court is of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and harsh. In view of the same, the impugned orders contained in Annexure-1 which is the order passed by the disciplinary authority, annexure-4 passed by the appellate authority and annexurfe-5, order of rejection of memorial by the Zonal Inspector General of Police are hereby set aside. Matter is remanded back to the respondents to pass any other order of punishment except punishment of dismissal. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)