Summary
The Court restored the discharge of a police battalion orderly whose prolonged unauthorised absence was sought to be justified by a later psychiatric certificate unsupported by contemporaneous treatment records. The High Court had wrongly substituted compulsory retirement despite a procedurally fair disciplinary inquiry and repeated refusal to undergo official medical verification.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in substituting compulsory retirement for discharge.
- Whether the absence was an exceptional case under Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code.
Provisions considered
- Rule 72, Orissa Service Code, 1939The prohibition on leave beyond five continuous years and the exceptional-circumstances proviso did not assist the employee on these facts. (¶ 21)
Held
- The employee repeatedly failed to submit to directed medical examination, refused disciplinary communications and produced no contemporaneous medical records. A later certificate did not establish treatment by its author throughout the claimed period; the Tribunal rightly doubted its veracity. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19, 20)
- The precedent involving 37 days of absence did not justify identical treatment of prolonged absence extending to about seven years. With due opportunity and no identified procedural infirmity, substitution of the discharge penalty was unwarranted on these facts. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18, 20, 22)
- The circumstances were not exceptional within Rule 72. The unsupported medical certificate did not justify departure from the rule governing absence exceeding five years. (¶ 21)
Result
State’s appeal allowed without costs. The High Court judgment substituting compulsory retirement for discharge was set aside, leaving the disciplinary discharge and the Tribunal’s rejection of the employee’s challenge in place.