The Delhi High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) constable who remained absent from duty after undergoing surgery without informing the department or applying for leave.

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur emphasized the responsibility of personnel in a disciplined force like the CAPF to maintain a high level of accountability.

Read Also: Delhi High Court Directs Legal Help for Three Indians Facing Death Sentence in Indonesia

“It was incumbent upon him, post-surgery, to apprise the respondents of his medical condition and to seek leave from them,” the Court said.

The petitioner, a member of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), challenged the dismissal order by arguing that his prolonged absence was due to serious health issues, including liver and heart-related ailments. He was hospitalized and advised complete bed rest. Additionally, during his recovery, his mother suffered a heart attack, and he had to care for her.

He further claimed that he could not receive the notices issued by the department asking him to resume duty because his health prevented him from updating his change in address.

Read Also: Delhi High Court Orders CBI to Conduct Preliminary Enquiry Into Extortion Racket in Tihar Jail

The SSB, however, argued that the constable’s absence was unauthorized and continued despite three separate notices. Since there was no response from his side, an ex-parte Court of Inquiry (COI) was conducted, following which the dismissal order was issued.

The Court found that the petitioner was medically unfit for only five days after surgery. It held that he could have at least informed the department about his condition or sought formal leave.

“There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner, subsequent to his discharge, either applied for leave or informed the respondents of his inability to resume duties,” the bench noted.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner’s excuse regarding the change of address, stating:

Read Also: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to JEE (Main) 2025 Aspirant Over Discrepancy Allegations

“It was the petitioner’s duty to intimate the respondents, either personally or through his kin and kith, of the said change of address. The omission to do so cannot, therefore, be held against the respondents.”

The Court concluded that the constable's continued absence without leave demonstrated indiscipline and a lack of seriousness towards duty, which justified his dismissal under Rule 21 read with Rule 18 of the Sashastra Seema Bal Rules, 2009.

While upholding the dismissal, the Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner’s gratuity and leave encashment benefits, stating these cannot be withheld unless the employer proves any financial loss due to the employee's actions.

Before closing, the bench strongly remarked on the importance of discipline in armed forces:

“Unauthorized absence from service is a grave misconduct that warrants initiation of departmental inquiry… Any responsible member of the Force could not be absent from service without permission and must show a high level of discipline and accountability.”

“Longer periods of absence from duty and repeated absence reveals indiscipline and non-seriousness towards the service. Such a conduct is unwarranted on part of any member of the Armed Forces.”

Appearance: Mr. Alamgir, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr. G. D. Sharma, Adv. for Respondent

Case title: Pradeep Kumar v. Union of India

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1976/2020