Unauthorized Absence Requires Proof of Willfulness: Non-consideration of Medical Defence Vitiates Disciplinary Orders

Case: Roop Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 4426/2021)

Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench

Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Ashish Shroti

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2025 (Reserved on 19 September 2025)

Introduction

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arose from a disciplinary action against a police Head Constable, Roop Singh, who was penalized for 99 days of unauthorized absence in two spells during 2015. The Disciplinary Authority (respondent no.4) imposed the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect by order dated 31 May 2017; the departmental appeal (16 January 2018) and mercy appeal (17 July 2018) were rejected. The petitioner challenged all three orders, asserting procedural infirmities (alleged absence of a Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer acting as prosecutor) and substantive illegality (failure to consider his medical defence and supporting documents).

The State maintained that as a member of a disciplined force the petitioner’s prolonged unauthorized absence merited punishment; that the proceedings were fair and evidence-based; and that the writ petition suffered from delay and laches.

The judgment addresses three central issues:

Whether delay and laches warranted dismissal of the writ petition;
Whether the enquiry was vitiated by the alleged prosecutorial role of the Enquiry Officer and non-appointment of a Presenting Officer; and
Whether the penalty orders were vitiated for non-consideration of the petitioner’s medical defence and documents, given the legal requirement that absence be willful to constitute misconduct.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court declined to non-suit the petitioner on delay and laches, noting the permanent financial impact of a “cumulative” stoppage of increment and the intervening COVID-19 lockdown. On the procedural objection, the Court found that a Presenting Officer was indeed appointed and, in any event, reiterated that non-appointment is not per se fatal. The fact that the Enquiry Officer put some general questions to the petitioner did not, in the circumstances, vitiate the enquiry, especially since the case turned on documents rather than intensive adversarial cross-examination.

On merits, the Court emphasized that absence is not misconduct per se unless intentional or willful. Because the petitioner had put forth a specific medical defence (supported by medical and fitness certificates and records relating to his own illness and his father’s illness), the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority were bound to consider that material and make reasoned findings. Their failure to do so amounted to non-application of mind. The appellate and mercy appellate authorities also did not correct this foundational error.

Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 31 May 2017, 16 January 2018, and 17 July 2018, and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority (respondent no.4) for fresh consideration in light of the Court’s observations. It clarified that if the fresh order is in the petitioner’s favor, the increment stopped pursuant to the earlier penalty must be restored.

Detailed Analysis

I. Issues and Holdings

Delay and laches: The writ was filed in February 2021, about three years after the mercy appeal decision. The Court accepted the explanation in part (permanent financial loss from a cumulative penalty and COVID-19 disruptions) and held that dismissal on delay would be inappropriate in the circumstances.
Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer’s role: Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, a Presenting Officer (ASI Shivraj Singh Chauhan) was appointed. The Enquiry Officer’s limited questioning, although labeled “cross-examination” in the record, did not amount to rigorous cross-examination or a prosecutorial role that would vitiate the enquiry—especially in a largely document-based case.
Merits—willfulness and consideration of medical defence: Unauthorized absence is a misconduct only when willful. The petitioner’s medical and family exigency defence, which was corroborated by documents and acknowledged by a prosecution witness, was not addressed in the findings of the Enquiry Officer or in the Disciplinary/ Appellate orders. The omission constituted non-application of mind, warranting interference and remand.

II. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The judgment turns principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670, and two coordinate bench decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670: The Supreme Court clarified that appointment of a Presenting Officer is not an indispensable requirement in every departmental enquiry. Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer vitiates an enquiry depends on the facts and the governing rules. Where rules are silent, principles of natural justice apply unless expressly excluded. The Court invoked this to reject the petitioner’s procedural attack: a Presenting Officer was in fact appointed, and even otherwise, the enquiry would not be void solely for that reason absent demonstrable prejudice.
The extract also referenced Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 to reaffirm that, where rules are silent, natural justice principles fill the gap; however, the present case did not turn on a disagreement note but on the general applicability of natural justice to enquiry conduct.
Santosh Kumar Daharia v. Union of India (M.P. High Court, W.P. No. 1399/2000) and Lal Singh Jatav v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 5062/2010): These decisions reiterate the same proposition: non-appointment of a Presenting Officer is not automatically fatal; the touchstone is fairness, prejudice, and the specific facts. The Court relied on this line to hold that the Enquiry Officer’s limited questioning did not compromise impartiality in the circumstances.

Significantly, the core interference here was not on the procedural facet of the enquiry’s format but on the substantive failure to consider the defence material—a classic ground of judicial review for non-application of mind.

III. Legal Reasoning

1. Delay and Laches: A Context-Sensitive Approach

The Court’s approach to delay foregrounded two salient factors: (i) the penalty of “withholding of one increment with cumulative effect” is financially enduring—its impact is not confined to a single increment cycle but depresses pay progression prospectively; and (ii) the extraordinary disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020, including lockdowns, plausibly contributed to the filing delay. While acknowledging that the explanation was not perfect, the Court refused to defeat substantive justice on a technicality in the face of ongoing financial prejudice. This reflects a pragmatic, equitable application of laches doctrine in writ jurisdiction.

2. Procedural Challenge: Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer’s Questions

The record showed the appointment of a Presenting Officer. The Court then examined whether the Enquiry Officer’s questioning of the petitioner—captioned as “cross-examination”—compromised impartiality. Two determinants guided the Court:

Nomenclature is not decisive: The “cross-examination” label did not reflect rigorous adversarial questioning. The queries were “general in nature.”
Documentary axis of the case: The charge and defence primarily rested on documentary evidence (leave applications, medical/fitness certificates, prescriptions). In such a setting, limited clarificatory questions by an Enquiry Officer do not, without more, translate into prosecutorial overreach.

Applying Ram Lakhan Sharma, the Court held that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer (even if it had been the case) is not intrinsically fatal; what matters is fairness and absence of prejudice. On these facts, no procedural vitiation was established.

3. Substantive Review: Willfulness and Non-application of Mind

The decisive ground of interference was substantive: the authorities’ failure to consider the petitioner’s medical defence and accompanying documents. The Court reaffirmed an important principle—absence is not ipso facto misconduct; it must be intentional or willful to attract disciplinary culpability. That determination necessarily requires the disciplinary authorities to:

Evaluate the employee’s explanation and supporting evidence (e.g., medical and fitness certificates);
Assess whether the absence, in context, was willful; and
Record reasoned findings demonstrating that the defence has been applied to the facts and weighed against the charge.

Here, one prosecution witness (Head Constable Chandan Singh Jadon) corroborated that medical documents were submitted. Yet, neither the Enquiry Officer’s findings nor the Disciplinary Authority’s order engaged with those documents. The appellate and mercy appellate orders did not cure this omission. The Court characterized this as “non-application of mind,” vitiating the penalty orders.

4. Ancillary Issues: Past Record and Regularization

The Disciplinary Authority referenced a prior censure for absence. The petitioner argued that past record cannot aggravate penalty without prior notice. Although the Court did not decide this issue (having set aside the orders on other grounds), it implicitly cautioned that reliance on past record for penalty must comport with natural justice (i.e., notice and opportunity if the record is to be used adversely).

The department had “regularized” the absence periods under Rule 24 of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules. The Court did not treat such regularization as dispositive either way; regularization for administrative accounting does not automatically exonerate misconduct, nor does it relieve authorities of their duty to assess willfulness and consider exculpatory material.

IV. Impact and Implications

1. For Disciplinary Authorities (especially in uniformed services)

Mandatory engagement with defence material: Where an employee pleads medical or family exigency and furnishes documents, reasoned engagement is indispensable. Silence on such material is fatal to the finding of willful absence.
Willfulness as the touchstone: Mere absence, even prolonged, is not per se misconduct. Findings must demonstrate intentionality or unjustified neglect.
Reasoned orders at each tier: Enquiry reports, penalty orders, and appellate orders must each show application of mind. Appellate authorities cannot simply echo conclusions; they must address specific grounds raised.
Presenting Officer and enquiry conduct: Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer will not automatically vitiate proceedings, but procedural fairness and absence of prejudice must be demonstrable. Enquiry Officers should avoid adversarial roles and confine themselves to clarificatory questioning where necessary.
Use of past record: If past adverse entries or censures are to influence the penalty, provide notice and an opportunity to respond, to avert a natural justice challenge.
Documentation discipline: Catalogue and discuss key documents (especially medical and fitness certificates) in the findings; failure to do so invites remand or quashing.

2. For Employees and Counsel

Submit complete medical documentation promptly: Include prescriptions, diagnostic reports, medical and fitness certificates, and any hospital records; keep acknowledgments of submission.
Articulate the defence clearly during enquiry: Ensure that the defence narrative and documents are placed and pressed on record and that their consideration (or lack thereof) is evident in the proceedings.
Challenge cumulative penalties judiciously: Given their enduring financial impact, courts may be more receptive to condoning delay in appropriate cases, especially where COVID-19 disrupted access to justice.

3. Systemic Effect

The decision strengthens procedural rigor in service jurisprudence by insisting that disciplinary determinations address exculpatory medical evidence and consciously apply the willfulness standard. It also clarifies that procedural labels (e.g., “cross-examination” by an Enquiry Officer) are less important than actual prejudice in determining fairness. In the longer run, the ruling encourages departments—particularly in disciplined forces—to calibrate the balance between institutional discipline and individualized, reasoned justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unauthorized absence: Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or beyond the period of sanctioned leave. It becomes misconduct only if willful (intentional or without sufficient cause).
Willful absence: Absence that is deliberate or reckless, not compelled by unavoidable circumstances (e.g., sudden serious illness). Evidence of communication attempts and medical documentation can negate willfulness.
Presenting Officer (PO): The department’s representative who presents the case during a disciplinary enquiry, akin to a prosecutor in a limited, administrative sense.
Enquiry Officer (EO): A neutral fact-finder who conducts the enquiry, records evidence, and submits findings. The EO should not assume an adversarial role.
Non-application of mind: A legal flaw where an authority fails to consider relevant evidence or grounds, or provides conclusions without reasons. Orders suffering from this are liable to be set aside.
Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect: A penalty that not only denies a scheduled pay increment for the current cycle but also depresses the base pay for future increments—creating a permanent financial impact unless reversed.
Remand: The court sets aside the impugned orders and sends the matter back to the competent authority to reconsider and pass fresh, reasoned orders in accordance with law.
Rule 24, M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules: Cited as the provision under which the petitioner’s absence periods were “regularized.” Regularization affects service accounting but does not automatically resolve disciplinary culpability.
Article 226 judicial review: The High Court examines the decision-making process for legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness; it does not re-try facts but will intervene where relevant material is ignored or principles of natural justice are breached.

Conclusion

Roop Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces two enduring principles in service law: first, unauthorized absence is not inherently a disciplinary offence—its culpability hinges on willfulness; and second, disciplinary orders must exhibit conscious, reasoned consideration of the employee’s defence, especially where supported by medical documentation. The Court’s calibrated stance on procedural objections (Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer’s questions) aligns with Supreme Court authority that fairness and demonstrable prejudice, not rigid formalism, govern vitiation analyses. Additionally, by refusing to dismiss the writ on delay in light of a cumulative penalty’s permanent financial effect and the COVID-19 context, the Court adopts a fact-sensitive, justice-oriented approach.

The practical message to disciplinary authorities is clear: address exculpatory material explicitly, apply the willfulness standard rigorously, and issue reasoned findings at every stage. Failure to do so risks remand and undoing of penalties. For employees, meticulous documentation and clear articulation of medical or family exigencies can be determinative. In the broader legal context, the decision strengthens procedural integrity and proportionality in disciplinary jurisprudence, particularly within disciplined forces where the stakes of both institutional order and individual fairness are high.