Navneet Kumar YadavversusUnion of India

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9942 of 2020
     ======================================================
     Navneet Kumar Yadav Son of Umesh Narain Yadav resident of Village-
     Karhara, P.O.- Baisath, P.S.- Benipati, District- Madhubani.

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2.   The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South East Zone-
     II, Kolkata.
3.   Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone- II,
     Headquarter at Mundali (Orissa).
4.   Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, RTC, Utai,
     Bhilai, Chhatisgrarh.
5.   The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, P.O.- Nalco Nagar,
     District- Angul (Orrisa).

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :      Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Adv.
                                    Mrs. Pooja Shree, Adv.
                                    Mr. Masoom Alam, Adv.
                                    Mr. Niraj Prasad Sinha, Adv.
     For the U.O.I.          :      Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sr. CGC
                                    Mr. Arvind Kumar, CGC
                                    Mr. Lokesh, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 02-07-2026

                      Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned Advocate for

      the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned Senior

      CGC duly assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned CGC for the

      respondent-Union of India.

                      2. The petitioner was duly selected and appointed as

      Constable/GD in CISF vide Letter No. 674 dated 21.03.2017,

      issued by the CISF Unit, Patliputra, Patna; subsequently he was

      directed to report at R.T.C. (Regional Training Centre),
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           2/23




         Mundali, Battalian No. 2, Odisha on 04.05.2017 for joining and

         undergone basic training. The petitioner in compliance with the

         order aforenoted, submitted his joining on 04.05.2017 and

         participated in the training program. In the meanwhile vide

         movement order issued by the Deputy Commandant, CISF,

         TTPC, Talchar, the petitioner was directed to report R.T.C.,

         Bhilai on 16.10.2018. He submitted his joining; and while

         undergoing training, he applied for ten days leave with effect

         from 18.10.2018 but was granted leave for seven days from

         18.10.2018 to 24.10.2018.

                     3. Despite the leave application granted for only seven

         days, the petitioner remained absent for 137 days, which led to

         an enquiry after framing of due charges and on completion of

         the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer returned his finding of guilt that

         the charges stood proved; based upon which the petitioner was

         inflicted with the punishment of removal from service with

         immediate effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also

         came to be rejected. The revision was also filed, but it met with

         the same fate and the Revisional Authority rejected the revision.

                     4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the

         jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition

         seeking following reliefs:-

                                             “1. That this is an application
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           3/23




                                 for issuance of a writ in the nature of
                                 Certiorari to quash the order as
                                 contained in letter no. 1759 dated
                                 28/29.05.2020 passed by the respondent
                                 no. 3 by which he rejected the appeal of
                                 the petitioner and also to quash letter no.
                                 204 dated 18.01.2020 passed by the
                                 respondent no. 5 by which the petitioner
                                 has been removed from service with
                                 immediate effect and also to quash the
                                 entire departmental proceeding initiated
                                 against the petitioner by letter no. 1315
                                 dated 30.04.2019 of the respondent no. 5
                                 and further for issuance of writ in the
                                 nature of Mandamus and/or any other
                                 appropriate writ, order or direction
                                 commanding upon the respondents to
                                 reinstate the petitioner in service and
                                 grant him all consequential benefit.
                                             2. To quash the Order of the
                                 Respondent no.2 as contained in letter no.
                                 3349 dated 16.03.2021 by the revision
                                 application filed by the petitioner has
                                 been rejected.”

                     5. At the outset, Mr. Pandey, learned Senior CGC has

         made a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability

         of the writ petition on the ground that this Court having no

         territorial jurisdiction must not consider the claim of the

         petitioner. It is submitted that the initiation of the departmental

         proceeding and the enquiry, which culminated into removal of

         the petitioner and its affirmance in the appeal and revision have

         taken place in Odisha and Chattisgarh and, as such, the present

         writ petition is not at all maintainable.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           4/23




                     6. To support the aforesaid contention, heavy reliance

         has been placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex

         Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs.

         Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711. Further reliance

         has also been placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court

         in the case of Amar Kumar Choubey Vs. The Union of India &

         Ors., (2009) 1 PLJR 553. Reference has also been made on a

         co-ordinate Bench’s decision rendered in the case of Sunil

         Kumar Yadav Vs. The Union of India & Ors., (2016) 3 PLJR

         870.

                     7. Referring to the aforenoted decisions, it is

         submitted with all vehemence that mere correspondences to a

         delinquent on his native place, in no circumstances, be treated as

         a cause of action and, as such, the petitioner ought to present his

         writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha and

         Chattisgarh, where the actual cause of action has arisen.

                     8. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the

         petitioner Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, has submitted that the facts

         are admitted to the extent that the petitioner was duly appointed

         and posted as a Constable/GC in CISF by Commandant, CISF

         Patliputra and he has submitted his joining, accordingly. Since

         the petitioner was on training and it was not a regular posting, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           5/23




         the meanwhile, on account of serious ailment, he was

         undergoing treatment in Darbhanga Medical College &

         Hospital, Darbhanga and all the correspondences have been

         made in his native place in the State of Bihar, the cause of action

         has arisen before this Court and accordingly, he preferred the

         present writ petition.

                     9. To strengthen his submission, reliance has been

         placed on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

         the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.,

         (2014) 9 SCC 329. It is further submitted that certain facts are

         also relevant for consideration of the case on merit that once the

         petitioner had submitted for his leave on 16.10.2018, he was

         granted leave for seven days. But, in the meanwhile, he fell ill

         and he filed a petition on 22.10.2018 with medical prescription

         for extending his leave for further five days and accordingly, the

         leave was extended and he was directed to report for training on

         30.10.2018, but the petitioner could not report because of his

         illness.

                     10. The petitioner though was reported to have over

         stayed on leave for 30.10.2018, but prior to that on 28.10.2018,

         he had submitted representations stating therein that he has been

         referred to Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital, Darbhanga
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           6/23




         by Primary Health Centre, Benipatti for his treatment by Ortho

         Specialist. To support the aforesaid contention, he has brought

         on record all the medical prescriptions. Since the petitioner was

         advised bed-rest for two months, on account of serious spinal

         ailment, the petitioner could not submit his joining and, in the

         meantime, on 13.11.2018/30.11.2018, the petitioner was given

         further notice to report along with the medical documents and

         get treatment from empaneled hospital. Finally, the petitioner

         was served with Letter No. 993 dated 06.02.2019 issued by the

         Commandant, CISF, RTC, Bhilai, whereby the disciplinary

         proceeding was initiated against him for the charge of over

         staying on leave of total 137 days.

                     11. Taking this Court through the charges and the

         enquiry report as well as the order of punishment, it is submitted

         that certain procedures have been flawed by the Enquiry

         Officers as well as disciplinary authority, but instead of assailing

         the order on the point of infirmities on the procedure, he

         submitted that since the order of removal is disproportionate to

         the charges of absence, hence the order should be set-aside on

         this score alone.

                     12. To bolster his submission, he drew the attention of

         this Court to a decision rendered by the learned Division Bench
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           7/23




         of this Court in Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Tiwary Vs. The

         Union of India & Ors., (LPA No. 617 of 2019), especially

         paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9. It is further urged that it is not the

         case of absconding from duty or abandonment rather it is the

         case where the petitioner was on leave for his treatment which

         extended for some more time and, as such, the removal from

         service is harsh, punitive and disproportionate to the charges.

                     13. Refuting the aforesaid contention, Mr. Awadhesh

         Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate for the Union of India

         submitted that since the charges of unauthorized absence from

         disciplinary force has already been proved and the order of the

         disciplinary authority has been affirmed in the appeal as well as

         in revision, no interference is required. The conduct of the

         petitioner is also writ large that earlier also, he remained absent

         unauthorizedly for few days, due to which he was inflicted with

         the punishment though it was a minor punishment, but while

         passing the impugned order, the disciplinary authority can look

         into the past conduct of the delinquent; further while exercising

         the power of judicial review, if there is no infirmity in the

         disciplinary proceeding, the punishment inflicted by the

         disciplinary authority should not be interfered unless it really

         shocks the conscience of the Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           8/23




                     14. After careful consideration of the submissions

         advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and on

         perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that

         before adjudicating the present lis on merit, the petitioner has to

         pass the test of maintainability of the writ petition, on account of

         lack of territorial jurisdiction.

                     15. Before taking note of the series of the decisions

         rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court giving quietus to the issue

         of territorial jurisdiction, it would be apt to take note of the

         constitutional provision and the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976,

         through which the amended clause (2) has been incorporated

         under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which reads as

         follows:-

                                                     “226.Power of High
                                         Courts to issue certain writs.—(1)
                                         Notwithstanding       anything    in
                                         Article 32, every High Court shall
                                         have power, throughout the
                                         territories in relation to which it
                                         exercises jurisdiction, to issue to
                                         any person or authority, including
                                         in     appropriate     cases,    any
                                         Government,        within      those
                                         territories, directions, orders or
                                         writs, including writs in the nature
                                         of habeas corpus, mandamus,
                                         prohibition, quo warranto and
                                         certiorari, or any of them, for the
                                         enforcement of any of the rights
                                         conferred by Part III and for any
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                           9/23




                                         other purpose.
                                                     (2)     The    power
                                         conferred on a High Court by
                                         clause (1) shall not be in
                                         derogation of the power conferred
                                         on the Supreme Court by clause
                                         (2) of Article 32.”

                     16. On reading of the constitutional amendment, there

         is no slightest hesitation that the High Court can issue a writ

         even when the person or the authority against whom the writ is

         located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action

         wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial

         jurisdiction.

                     17. The expression cause of action for the purpose of

         invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 (2) of the

         Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

         Utpal Kumar Basu (supra), while setting aside the order passed

         by the Calcutta High Court on the plea that NICCO came to

         know of the tender from the publication in the Times of India

         within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, concluded as

         follows:-

                                            “6. It is well settled that the
                                 expression “cause of action” means that
                                 bundle of facts which the petitioner must
                                 prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a
                                 judgment in his favour by the Court. In
                                 Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR (1889)
                                 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          10/23




                                 said:
                                            “… the cause of action has no
                                 relation whatever to the defence which
                                 may be set up by the defendant, nor does
                                 it depend upon the character of the relief
                                 prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers
                                 entirely to the ground set forth in the
                                 plaint as the cause of action, or, in other
                                 words, to the media upon which the
                                 plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a
                                 conclusion in his favour.”
                                             Therefore, in determining the
                                 objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction
                                 the court must take all the facts pleaded
                                 in support of the cause of action into
                                 consideration albeit without embarking
                                 upon an enquiry as to the correctness or
                                 otherwise of the said facts. In other words
                                 the question whether a High Court has
                                 territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ
                                 petition must be answered on the basis of
                                 the averments made in the petition, the
                                 truth or otherwise whereof being
                                 immaterial. To put it differently, the
                                 question of territorial jurisdiction must be
                                 decided on the facts pleaded in the
                                 petition. Therefore, the question whether
                                 in the instant case the Calcutta High
                                 Court had jurisdiction to entertain and
                                 decide the writ petition in question even
                                 on the facts alleged must depend upon
                                 whether the averments made in
                                 paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are
                                 sufficient in law to establish that a part of
                                 the cause of action had arisen within the
                                 jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.”


                     18. In case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union

         of India & Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          11/23




         held that the cause of action implies a right to sue. The material

         facts, which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove,

         constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in

         any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia

         to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the

         plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the

         judgment of the Court. It would also be relevant to quote

         paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the said judgment, which are

         reproduced hereinbelow:-

                                             “9. Although in view of
                                 Section 141 of the Code of Civil
                                 Procedure the provisions thereof would
                                 not apply to writ proceedings, the
                                 phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the
                                 Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of
                                 Article 226, being in pari materia, the
                                 decisions of this Court rendered on
                                 interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall
                                 apply to the writ proceedings also. Before
                                 proceeding to discuss the matter further it
                                 may be pointed out that the entire bundle
                                 of facts pleaded need not constitute a
                                 cause of action as what is necessary to be
                                 proved before the petitioner can obtain a
                                 decree is the material facts. The
                                 expression material facts is also known as
                                 integral facts.
                                             10. Keeping in view the
                                 expressions used in clause (2) of Article
                                 226 of the Constitution of India,
                                 indisputably even if a small fraction of
                                 cause of action accrues within the
                                 jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will
                                 have jurisdiction in the matter.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          12/23




                     19. In the aforesaid case, their Lordships further

         observed in paragraph no. 30 of the judgment that even if a

         small part of cause of action arises within the territorial

         jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be

         considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High

         Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the

         Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by

         invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.

                     20. It would be also worth benefiting to take note of

         the decision rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs.

         Adani Exports Ltd & Anr., (2002) 1 SCC 567, wherein the

         Court while answering the issue with respect to relevance of

         facts pleaded in support of the cause of action in order to

         determine the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of

         the Constitution observed that in order to confer jurisdiction on

         a High Court to entertain a writ petition, it must disclose that the

         integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action, which

         constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a

         dispute. Each and every facts pleaded in the petition does not

         ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a

         cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction, unless

         those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          13/23




         with the lis.

                     21. In Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India &

         Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 207, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while

         dealing with the issue of territorial jurisdiction has clarified that

         the question of cause of action arising within the territorial

         limits either wholly or in part for filing a writ has to be decided

         in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under

         Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ

         petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a legal right

         claimed by him has prima facie either been infringed or is

         threatened to be infringed by the respondent within the

         jurisdiction and such infringement may take place by causing

         him actual injury or threat thereof.

                     22. In Amar Kumar Choubey (supra), the judgment

         passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court where the

         prayer for grant of disability pension, in terms of Central Civil

         Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules has been reiterated by

         the learned Single Judge on the ground that this Court had no

         territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition on the ground

         that the impugned order came to be passed by the Colonel

         Assam Rifles in the Office of Directorate General of Assam

         Rifles, Shillong and only communication has been made to his
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          14/23




         home address, held that cause of action on the basis of

         communication of rejection of claim is wholly misconceived,

         once from the materials available on record, it suggest that

         every part of the cause of action has arisen beyond territorial

         jurisdiction of this Court.

                     23. Now coming to the decision rendered in the case

         of Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra), where the petitioner had

         challenged the order dated 02.11.2012 issued by the Regional

         Director, Staff Selection Commission, Karnataka Kerala

         Region, Bangalore, whereby he has been informed that his name

         has been withdrawn from the select list on account of non

         submission of OBC certificate in format. The writ petition came

         to be dismissed after taking note of various decisions in this line

         by holding that mere service of notice does not create any cause

         of action or any fraction of cause of action with this Court to

         entertain this petition by the High Court at Patna.

                     24. Lastly we take up the decision in Nawal Kishore

         Sharma (supra) on which heavy reliance has been placed by

         learned Advocate for the petitioner; it would be proper to

         highlight the facts of the case under which the order has been

         passed. In the said case, the appellant was suffering from serious

         heart muscle disease (dilated cardiomyopathy) and breathing
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          15/23




         problem which forced him to stay in his native place in Bihar,

         wherefrom he has been making all correspondence with regard

         to his disability compensation allegedly due from Shipping

         Corporation of India, having rendered almost 23 years of service

         before being declared permanently unfit for service on medical

         ground. All the correspondences/reply, including rejection of

         claim for disability pension, were addressed to him at his native

         place.

                     25. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held

         that as no cause of action or in part for filing a writ petition has

         arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petition was

         held not maintainable. The matter has finally come up for

         consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the

         Hon’ble Court finally held and answered the question whether

         the service of notice was an integral part of the cause within the

         meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India must

         depend upon the nature of the order giving rise to a cause of

         action. The Court further observed that considering all the facts

         together, including the facts that respondent Union of India

         instead of raising objection as to territorial jurisdiction at the

         time of interim order opposed only grant of interim order and

         since part of fraction of cause of action did arise within the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          16/23




         jurisdiction of the High Court where appellant received letter of

         refusal disentitling him from disability compensation, where he

         was forced to stay due to said disability held cause of action

         partly arose at his native place.

                     26. After careful consideration of all the decisions

         rendered hereinabove, one thing which is evident that the

         question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for

         filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction

         of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the facts and

         character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the

         Constitution. It hardly needs to be emphasized that in order to

         maintain a writ petition, a writ petitioner has to establish that a

         legal right claimed by him has been infringed or is threatened to

         be infringed by the respondent within the territorial limits of the

         Court’s jurisdiction.

                     27. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly the

         petitioner was duly selected and appointed as Constable/GD in

         CISF vide Letter No. 674 dated 21.03.2017 issued by the

         C.I.S.F. Unit, Patliputra, Patna and whereupon he was sent to

         the Regional Training Centre at Mundali, Odisha for basic

         training and later on, to different training centre at RTC, Bhilai,

         where he applied for extra ordinary leave.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          17/23




                     28. Upon the leave having been granted, he returned

         to his native place but on account of numbness in left side of

         lower limb, he has to undergo treatment and referred to DMCH,

         Darbhanga. The fact of illness and his undergoing treatment has

         been reported to the authorities concerned and he was asked to

         report along with all medical documents in the training centre

         and get treatment in empaneled hospital through various list.

                     29.        Simultaneously,       petitioner   submitted

         representation along with medical prescriptions and requested

         for extension of leave, but this did not persuade the

         Commandant, CIST, RTC, Bhilai under which he was carrying

         on training. This incidence led to disciplinary proceeding

         against the petitioner for charge of unauthorized stay. However,

         the said disciplinary proceeding was cancelled and a fresh

         proceeding has been initiated by the CISF, TTPC, Talchar.

                     30. The moment the petitioner came to know, rushed

         to the CISF, RTC, Bhilai and submitted his joining, but the same

         was not accepted and the petitioner was served with memo of

         charge along with list of documents and the enquiry was

         conducted and finally enquiry report was communicated to the

         petitioner, which was duly responded and on being found

         unsatisfactory, the Commandant, CISF, Nalco Unit, Angul
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          18/23




         (Odisha) communicated the order of punishment for removal

         from service with immediate effect. The appeal and the revision

         preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected and the

         orders have been communicated to the petitioner.

                     31. One thing which is evident from the facts that

         firstly the petitioner was under training upon his initial

         appointment in CISF, Patliputra, Patna and while he was in his

         native place, he referred to DMCH, Darbhanga where his

         treatment was going on and from where all the correspondences

         have been made explaining the position that he is not on

         unauthorized leave, rather under extra ordinary compelling

         circumstances, he was forced to undergo treatment.

                     32. This Court is also constrained to consider that the

         writ petition was filed in the year 2020 and now the pleadings

         are also complete and once we shall go by the strict

         interpretation of all the orders that these facts are not sufficient

         enough to constitute a cause of action, the petitioner has to face

         another jolt of harassment. Keeping in mind that technicalities

         must not defeat the substantial justice, this Court is of the

         opinion that since the charge, which led to removal of the

         petitioner on unauthorized absence, which incidence has taken

         place in the State of Bihar constitute a cause of action, hence the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          19/23




         preliminary objection of the respondent Union of India with

         regard to maintainability of the writ petition on account of the

         Court having no territorial jurisdiction is hereby ruled out and

         the plea stands rejected.

                     33. Now coming to the merit of this case, this Court

         has no slightest hesitation that if the Constable/Personnel of a

         disciplined force remained absent from duty without any

         information, his absence constitute a serious misconduct and the

         punishment of dismissal is proportionate to such charge.

                     34. Since the facts of this case have already been

         discussed in details in the aforegoing paragraphs, it would not

         be appropriate to reiterate the same herein again. However, one

         thing which is evident that the present is not a case where the

         petitioner left his duty without any communication rather he

         went on leave by taking permission from the authorized Officer,

         but on account of serious ailments, he was referred to DMCH,

         Darbhanga for the treatment and later on, he submitted his

         application along with all the medical reports for extension of

         his leave and the same was extended for a short period, but by

         reason or the other, subsequently his request was turned down

         and in this way, he remained on leave unauthorizedly for 137

         days, which led to initiation of departmental proceeding and his
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          20/23




         dismissal.

                      35. The imposition of major penalty for remaining

         absent for 137 days in the facts and circumstances of this case

         prima facie appears to be too harsh and shocks the conscience

         of this Court, especially when the petitioner immediately after

         recovering from the illness submitted his joining and

         participated in all the proceedings bonafidely.

                      36. Before parting further this Court also take note of

         the decision in Yasodhar Kamat Vs. Director General, Border

         Security Force & Ors., (2021) 13 SCC 333 where the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court taking note of the long service of a Constable in

         BSF and his application for extension of leave, though belatedly

         has observed that his conduct could not be condoned, but the

         imposition of penalty of dismissal has been held to be

         disproportionate to the charges of unauthorized overstay.

                      37. Similar issue with regard to unauthorized absence

         of a Constable has come up for consideration before the learned

         Division Bench of this Court in Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar

         Tiwary (supra) where the Constable of Central Reserve Police

         Force overstayed for 196 days on account of treatment of his

         mother, who was suffering from cancer, but his plea was not

         accepted and the documents submitted by him have not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          21/23




         taken into account either by any of the respondent authorities or

         by the learned Single Judge. The learned Division Bench while

         setting-aside the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the

         order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the

         appellate revisional order has held that “Keeping in view all the

         facts and circumstances of the case, we are very much

         conscious of the fact that absence of the appellant from duty

         cannot be equated with the person who is said to be

         unauthorized absence from his duty. On the said score,

         dismissal of appellant from service is totally disproportionate to

         the conduct committed by the appellant. For the end of justice,

         we have to take sympathetic approach towards the appellant in

         the given facts and circumstances of the case that appellant has

         reason to leave the place of posting.”

                     38. The learned Division Bench thus further directed

         the concerned respondents to regulate services in accordance

         with law and allow him to join and extend the monetary benefits

         with a further order that his unauthorized absence be treated as

         leave in his credit, as per provision applicable in the case of the

         appellant while imposing any of the minor penalty.

                     39. Considering the entire gamut of the facts, this

         Court also finds that the order of dismissal of the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                          22/23




         the facts and circumstances of this case is disproportionate to

         the charge of unauthorized absence of 137 days, where the

         petitioner was under treatment and had been submitting

         continuous application/representation along with medical

         certificates for extension of his leave in extra ordinary

         circumstances and once such medical prescription/certificate has

         not been distrusted, in such circumstances, the impugned order

         as contained in Letter No. 204 dated 18.18.01.2020 of dismissal

         is wholly unwarranted and accordingly, held to be unsustainable

         and is hereby set-aside.

                     40. Once the order of dismissal stood set-aside, the

         appellate order as well as revisional order also do not survive

         and the same are also hereby set-aside.

                     41. The concerned respondents are hereby directed to

         reinstate the service of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

         However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled

         for the salary and other emoluments, the period in which he

         remained outside the service, which shall though be counted

         notionally for all other benefits. The unauthorized absence be

         treated as leave in his credit, as per the provision applicable

         while imposing any of the minor penalty/warning.

                     42. It is expected that the above exercise shall be
             Patna High Court CWJC No.9942 of 2020 dt.02-07-2026
                                                       23/23




                      undergone within a period of two months, from the date of

                      receipt/production of a copy of this order.

                                  43. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent

                      indicated hereinabove.

                                  44. There shall be no order as to cost.




                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          03.07.2026
Transmission Date       NA