Case: Union Of India  Vs. Devjee Mishra

the respondent at the relevant time was working in the rank of Corporal in 27th Wing of Air Force and was posted at the Air Force Bhuj Station in the State of Gujarat. Departmental action was taken against him for over staying the leave period. Charge sheet was served on him dated 18th June 2004, which readse accused, 722779 H Cpl Mishra D MT Tech of 27 Wing, AF an airman of the regular Air Forces is charged withn 39(b) AF ACTSUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING>In that27 Wing. AF having been granted leave of absence from 12 Apr 03 to 27Apr 03, overstayed the said leave without sufficient cause until he surrendered himself to 629555 Sgt Singh RK IAF/P at Main Guard room of 27 Wing, AF at 1000 hrs on 20 Marn 39(a) AF ACT

Reasoning:
The misconduct for which the respondent has been sentenced and punished is not the first of its kind committed by him. Even in the past he indulged in similar misconduct. Moreover, the respondent indulged in making reckless and frivolous allegations against his superiors even in the past and was not serious enough in serving the Air Force. He overstayed the leave period after his marriage was fixed on 10th February, 2003 on the specious ground that he was unwell and was undergoing medical treatment. The Competent Authority having taken notice of all the attending circumstances chose to impose punishment of dismissal. We cannot impose our opinion or substitute the subjective satisfaction reached by the Competent Authority in that regard.In our opinion, in the fact situation of the present case, the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with the impugned decision of the Competent Authority of awarding sentence and punishment to the respondent for the two charges in respect of which he had pleadedfind that there is discretion vested in the Competent Authority to sanction pension / gratuity or both, in exceptional cases. Even though the respondent has been dismissed from service, he is free to pursue that remedy, if so advised. The Competent Authority may consider the said representation in accordance with law. We reiterate that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion in thatappeal must succeed. Hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th July, 2008, and the order of the Division Bench dated 23rd June, 2009 are set aside. Instead, the Court Martial Proceedings dated 17th June, 2004 as also the order dated 2nd July, 2004 promulgating the same are restored and