Delhi HC Upholds Dismissal Of CAPF Constable Who Remained Absent From Duty On Health Grounds, Says He Had Duty To Seek Leave After Surgery

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur was of the view that being in a disciplinary force, a high level of accountability was expected from the personnel and “it was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them.”

This is a failure to discharge an obligation placed on him, being an employee of a disciplined Force, the bench added.

The Petitioner-employee claimed that the authorities had gravely erred in failing to take into consideration his critical medical condition.

He further submitted that notices to resume duty that were issued by the respondents remained unserved on him as he was unable to communicate the change in his residential address owing to his deteriorating health and convalescence period.

Petitioner was admitted to a hospital, being diagnosed with liver and heart related ailments. Upon discharge, he was advised complete bed rest. Subsequently, his mother suffered from heart attack and the petitioner had her admitted in the hospital and looked after her. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner said he had to remain absent from his place of duty.

The respondents however claimed that Petitioner continued absence from duty without any sanction of leave and despite three notices being issued to him to report to duty. Thus in light of his prolonged absence, an ex-parte Court of Inquiry (COI) was convened and eventually the impugned dismissal order was passed.

The Court found that the petitioner was unfit for work for only five days. Thereafter, the Court said, “it is reasonable to presume that he would have been in a condition to either inform the respondents of his health condition, if not to resume duties. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner, subsequent to his discharge, either applied for leave or informed the respondents of his inability to resume duties.”

It also observed that in the face of “persistent opportunity” given to the petitioner by the respondents to resume duty, he remained unresponsive and he was thus liable to be dismissed from service in accordance with Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009.

It observed, “we find no merit in the petitioner‟s contention that he could not respond to the notices sent by the respondents as he had vacated his previous place of residence and thus, the notices were not served upon him…it was the petitioner‟s duty to intimate the respondents, either personally or through his kin and kith, of the said change of address. The omission to do so cannot, therefore, be held against the respondents.”

The Court however directed the Respondents to release the gratuity and leave encashment benefits of petitioner, stating that the same cannot be withheld unless the employer shows that they suffered loss or damage on account of “an act‟ of the employee.

Before parting, the Court added,

“It is to be noted that “unauthorized absence” from Service is a grave misconduct that warrants initiation of Departmental Inquiry…Any responsible member of the Force could not be absent from service without permission and must show a high level of discipline and accountability. Longer period of absence from duty and repeated absence reveals indiscipline and non seriousness towards the service. Such a conduct is unwarranted on part of any member of the Armed Forces.”

Appearance: Mr. Alamgir, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. G. D. Sharma, Adv. for Respondent

Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 506

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1976/2020

Click here to read order