Wilful Absence vs Illness: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Dismissed Head Constable

In a significant ruling on disciplinary proportionality within uniformed services, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has partly allowed a writ appeal filed by a dismissed Head Constable, holding that while the charge of unauthorised absence stood proved, the punishment of dismissal from service warranted reconsideration.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a writ appeal filed by Ajay Singh Verma against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others. The appeal challenged the order of a single judge dismissing his writ petition against termination from service and rejection of departmental appeals.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocates Mahendra Pateriya and Vishal Pateriya contended that the absence was neither wilful nor deliberate but occasioned by illness. It was submitted that Verma, initially appointed as a Constable in 1999 and promoted to Head Constable in 2014, had fallen seriously ill in September 2014 and had obtained permission to seek medical treatment. His departure was recorded in the Roznamcha, and he later rejoined duty with medical documents. Counsel argued that the authorities failed to establish “wilful” absence as required by law and that more than 400 days of leave were available to his credit, which could have been adjusted.

The appellant further raised the plea of double jeopardy, asserting that once the period of absence had been treated as “dies non” under the principle of “no work no pay,” dismissal for the same period was excessive. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India to stress that unauthorised absence must be shown to be wilful to constitute misconduct.

Opposing the appeal, Government Advocate Ritwik Parashar argued that the appellant was a habitual delinquent who had faced 30 minor and two major penalties, including repeated instances of unauthorised absence. It was submitted that in a disciplined force like the police, prolonged absence without proper intimation undermines institutional discipline. The State relied on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran to contend that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence.

After examining the record, the bench declined to interfere with the findings of misconduct recorded in the departmental enquiry. The court noted that the appellant had remained absent for 197 days during one spell and had not responded to multiple notices issued by the department. It rejected the argument that leave could be retrospectively adjusted at the employee’s discretion, observing that such a practice “would disturb the entire discipline in the police department.”

However, the court found merit in the argument relating to proportionality of punishment. It observed that the appellant’s promotion to Head Constable in 2014 implied that earlier adverse entries and punishments had already been considered and could not again be relied upon cumulatively to justify dismissal. Referring to the doctrine of proportionality, the bench cited Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla, reiterating that while indiscipline cannot be condoned, punishment must correspond to the gravity of misconduct.

Quoting from precedent, the court emphasised that “award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review.” It also referred to Krushnakant B. Parmar to underscore that absence due to compelling circumstances like illness may not amount to wilful misconduct.

Holding that dismissal appeared excessive solely for overstaying leave, particularly when the appellant had already suffered the consequence of “no work no wages,” the bench remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to impose an appropriate penalty. The charge-sheet and findings of guilt were upheld, but the question of punishment was reopened.

The court further directed that before any reinstatement, the authorities must assess the appellant’s health, character verification, integrity, and conduct during the intervening decade. It clarified that if adverse material is found rendering him unfit for police service, the authority may record reasons and decline reinstatement.

The appeal was thus partly allowed, reaffirming both the importance of discipline in police services and the constitutional requirement that punishment must not be disproportionate.

Case Title: Ajay Singh Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal