Madras High Court M. Vallavaraj, "D" Company C.I.S.F. ... vs The Deputy Inspector General, Central ... on 8 March, 2005 Equivalent citations: (2005)2MLJ152 ORDER R. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ petitioner came to be dismissed from service by order dated 20.02.1993 passed by the second respondent which was affirmed by the appellate authority/first respondent by order dated 20.12.1993. This order of dismissal is in challenge in the writ petition. Heard Mr. A. Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. K. Rajendran, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. The only charge against the petitioner is that he had taken medical leave (with effect from 21.7.1992) for two days on false grounds; left the headquarters without permission to Kancheepuram and there he was arrested by a local police on an allegation of criminal offence on 22.07.1992 whereby he was remanded to judicial custody which tarnished the image of Central Industrial Security Force. There is no dispute that all the procedures established by law that follows issuance of the charge memo had been strictly complied with. Number of witnesses have been examined and the enquiry officer's report finding that the charge stands proved was accepted by the employer who, again after complying with all the legal formalities, passed an order of dismissal. Mr. A. Thirumurthy learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner does not raise any dispute on the above aspects. Therefore, the fact remains established that while on medical leave for two days with effect from 21.07.1992 the writ petitioner went out of the headquarters without prior permission from his employer and while he was so away he came to be arrested and sent for judicial remand. 3. It is argued by Mr. A. Thirumurthy, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that there is no material on record to support the finding that on false grounds the writ petitioner had availed medical leave; going out of headquarters without prior permission cannot be of such a serious nature warranting punishment of dismissal and in any event the petitioner having been acquitted by a competent criminal Court, his detention in judicial custody looses its importance. Therefore, the submission is that, once the criminal Court gives an acquittal to the writ petitioner, his detention in judicial custody for a period of two days is insignificant and it may not be the basis for the charge memo itself. Then it is submitted that accepting the position that the petitioner, without informing his authorities in advance, left the headquarters while he was on medical leave, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against him. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court (Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India) where a punishment of dismissal imposed for unauthorised absence was held to be harsh. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Bahadur S. Solanki v. L.I.C. Of India and Anr.) that once a delinquent employees comes out successfully in a criminal case, punishment imposed departmentally have to be necessarily set aside. We heard the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel who would state that having regard to the task force namely Central Industrial Security Force in which the writ petitioner was employed during the relevant time, his detention in judicial custody for two days had definitely brought a disrespect to the force itself. How best the reputation of a force must be preserved and protected is purely in the hands of the employer himself and it is not for the Court to interfere and say that any such misconduct is not likely to affect the image of the force itself. In other words, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel would submit that the Court would not be in a position to substitute its own opinion to that of the employer that in a given circumstance, the image of the said employer is tarnished or not. 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the entire materials on record. In the first judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner the employee was a sorting assistant who had been dismissed from service on account of unauthorised absence. Except the allegation of mere unauthorised absence there was nothing else against the employee in that case. The Supreme Court, on the facts and circumstances available in that case, was of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and thus substituted an appropriate lesser punishment. Therefore, the question whether the punishment imposed by an employer calls for an interference or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances available in each case. There may be case