Rajasthan High Court has set aside the forfeiture of 26 years of service of a constable who went on unsanctioned leave of 15 days on account of illness, opining that the punishment was so excessive, grossly disproportionate and arbitrary that it shook the conscience of the Court and undermined the rehabilitative objective that a welfare state ought to follow.
“Punishing health-related absence—unintended consequences of illness is against the ethos of proportional justice, which demands penalties commensurate with the gravity of delinquency. Furthermore, disciplinary action should aim to rehabilitate employees rather than impose irreversible penalties that effectively end their careers.”
The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that Rule 86(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“1951 Rules”) should be applied judiciously, and forfeiture of past service of 26 years could not be done by a stroke of a pen in a mechanical manner. It held that disciplinary actions should not aim to terminate the employment rather than correct the same.
The Court further ruled that administrative decisions affecting employee’s entire career must prioritize principle of least harm since excessive punishment ran the risk of creating a chilling effect where employees hesitate to report health issues or request leave fearing severe consequences.
The Court was hearing a petition by a constable who was hired in 1979. After serving for 26 years, in 2004, he suddenly fell ill on account of an old broken rib and had to go on leave for which he informed his senior and subsequently also submitted relevant documents of the medical treatment and reports.
Also read – ‘How long can you stare at wife?’: L&T chairman suggests 90-hour workweek
However, after resuming duty, he was issued notice under Rule 86(1) of the 1951 Rules calling for explanation of his leave. Despite submitting the explanation, the order was passed treating his leave as willful absence and forfeiting the petitioner’s 26 years of service. This order was challenged before the Court.
On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the petitioner was on duty at a hospital to maintain vigilance over prisoner patients, but he went on leave without informing anyone which could have led to serious consequences like prisoners escaping.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that forfeiting the entire past service of the petitioner was to the effect of treating him as a fresh appointee in minimum pay which was worse than removing the petitioner from service. This was because removal simplicitor would not take away the benefits of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits earned by the past service. However, due to forfeiture the petitioner would be left with only 13 years of service till his superannuation.
In this background, the Court observed that proportionality of punishment had to be examined since the principle of proportionality was the mainstay and cornerstone of administrative law. It held that the mere speculations of the respondents about potential risk due to the leave of petitioner could not be a justification of such harsh penalty.
“Punishment should correspond to the severity of the misconduct. The punishment should not be so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court. Moreover, the petitioner’s absence did not result in any adverse consequences such as an escape of prisoners or security breach. The respondents’ speculative stand about potential risk of it happening seems too insufficient a justification so as impose such harsh penalty.”
Furthermore, the Court also highlighted many procedural lapses with the order. It stated that as per Rule 16(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, no penalties as mentioned under Rule 14 could be passed without an inquiry. And even though the petitioner’s services were forfeited under the 1951 Rules, both the Rules had to be read harmoniously and homogenously for being equally applicable.
The Court also stated that medical records, even if incomplete, carried a presumption of credibility and should not be disregarded without expert evaluation to refute the authenticity.
In this background, the Court ruled that a more balanced approach was needed, guided by fairness, proportionality and principle of rehabilitation, to prevent the employees from getting demoralized.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, quashing the orders that forfeited the service of the petitioners, entitling the petitioner to all consequential benefits.
Title: Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 17
Source: livelaw
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
