Courts may intervene in disciplinary punishments only when the penalty is “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct proved—reaffirming Supreme Court precedent on limited judicial review and clarifying adjustments in cases involving medical leave. Judgment upholds existing precedent, serves as binding authority within the jurisdiction, and clarifies application in police disciplinary matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/3457/2021 of RAJESH KUMAR DUBEY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010271972021 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2021 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Partly Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Sri Ananda Sen, J. |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single Bench (Sri Ananda Sen, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Type of Law | Service/Administrative Law—Public Employment, Disciplinary Proceedings in Police Service |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The judgment reiterates that it is the prerogative of the employer to determine disciplinary punishment, and courts may interfere only if the penalty is “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct proved. In this case, despite the petitioner’s procedural lapse, his absence was due to genuine medical reasons. The penalty of “no work no pay” was found excessive and thus set aside, with the period directed to be treated as earned leave. Remanding the matter to the authority was deemed unnecessary to avoid delay, and only the excessive portion of the punishment was quashed. The legal principle is grounded in Supreme Court precedent and applied specifically to departmental disciplinary matters involving medical leave. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s summary of the law in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh regarding the limited power of judicial review over disciplinary quantum of punishment, and the doctrine of “shockingly disproportionate” punishment as a ground for interference. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a police officer, fell seriously ill while on duty in October 2017, left for medical treatment with his superior’s consent, and rejoined after medical clearance in January 2018. Seven months later he was charge-sheeted and punished with censure and “no work no pay” for his absence, which was marked as extraordinary leave. His appeal was rejected. He produced medical documents but disciplinary authorities allegedly failed to consider them properly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; may be cited before the Supreme Court for principles on judicial review of disciplinary punishment |
| Follows | Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and clarifies that judicial intervention in disciplinary penalty is limited to cases where punishment is “shockingly disproportionate” to the misconduct proved.
- Judicial direction to treat the absence due to medical treatment as earned leave instead of imposing “no work no pay”, especially where medical reasons are substantiated.
- Courts may set aside excessive punishments directly instead of remanding the matter, to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings.
- Establishes practical precedent for service lawyers handling departmental absence cases involving genuine illness and medical documentation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court restated the legal position, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh), that the quantum of punishment in departmental proceedings lies within the exclusive domain of the employer and is generally immune from judicial interference.
- Judicial review is available only when the punishment is found to be so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court (“shockingly disproportionate”).
- The petitioner’s absence was supported by medical evidence and consent from a superior officer, and while he failed to keep the employer informed throughout his absence, the reason was bona fide.
- The imposition of “no work no pay” was found not to commensurate with the actual misconduct, given the circumstances.
- Ordinarily, courts would remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, but to prevent delay and multiplicity of proceedings, the High Court directly set aside the excessive portion of the punishment.
- The absence period was directed to be treated as earned leave rather than extraordinary leave with forfeiture of pay.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The punishment order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without proper reasoning.
- Medical documents and representations regarding the petitioner’s serious health condition were not properly considered by the authorities.
- The punishment of “no work no pay” was excessive given the medical support for his absence.
- Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual entitles leave for valid absence, including medical reasons.
Respondents (State)
- The petitioner left for medical treatment without officially obtaining leave and was absent for 98 days.
- The joining report submitted by the petitioner did not include medical prescriptions at the time of return.
- The absence was unauthorized and constituted gross misconduct.
- The disciplinary authority found his explanation unsatisfactory after inquiry, justifying the penalty imposed.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a police officer, was assigned Long Range Patrolling duty in October 2017 when he fell seriously ill. He sought treatment at a primary health centre, was referred to a higher centre, and received 15 days’ bed rest on medical advice. With the Officer-in-Charge’s consent, he left for treatment and rejoined duty in January 2018 after being declared medically fit. However, seven months after his return, departmental charges of unauthorized absence, negligence, and indiscipline were brought against him. Following a departmental inquiry, the punishment imposed included censure and forfeiture of pay (“no work no pay”) for the period of absence, which was marked as extraordinary leave. His appeal was rejected, prompting this writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 843 of the Jharkhand Police Manual was cited, providing that leave should be granted to police officers absent for valid reasons such as medical grounds.
- The Court interpreted the application of leave rules pertaining to absence due to genuine medical grounds, affirming that medical absence, duly supported by documentation and supervisor’s knowledge, should not be treated the same as willful, unauthorized absence.
- No express interpretation or reading down of the statute; applied in light of established precedent and the given facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; single judge bench (Sri Ananda Sen, J.).
Procedural Innovations
- The Court, instead of remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the penalty, directly set aside the excessive portion of the punishment to prevent undue delay and multiplicity of proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and applies the Supreme Court’s standard from Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh on judicial interference in departmental punishments.