Case at a Glance
A constable appointed on compassionate grounds in 2011 went absent from basic training at the Police Training School, Sagar, from 25 March 2023 without leave or intimation, citing his mother’s sudden illness. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Bhopal terminated him with effect from 17 July 2023, and the period of 115 days was treated as ‘No Work, No Pay’. His appeal and mercy petition failed. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that regularising absence as leave without pay does not wipe out the misconduct, that a trainee is still ‘on test’, and that prolonged unauthorised absence in a disciplined force deserves no misplaced sympathy.
Ravi Kumar Goutam was appointed as a Constable on compassionate grounds by an order dated 22 June 2011. During the 2022–23 session he was undergoing basic training at the Police Training School, Sagar. From 25 March 2023 he remained absent without leave or intimation; he attributed this to his mother’s sudden and severe illness. Relying on Paragraph 59 of the Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Bhopal terminated his services with effect from 17 July 2023, and the 115-day absence was settled as ‘No Work, No Pay’.
His statutory appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police (Rail), and his mercy petition was rejected by the Director General of Police on 22 April 2025. In the writ petition he argued that termination was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, that the authorities ignored a genuine mitigating factor, and that since the absence had been regularised as ‘No Work, No Pay’, the misconduct stood condoned and a separate termination could not stand. The State argued that discipline is essential in a uniformed force and a trainee who leaves training for 115 days without intimation cannot be excused.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does treating a period of unauthorised absence as ‘No Work, No Pay’ condone the misconduct, and can a trainee constable be terminated for 115 days of absence despite a family medical emergency?
Leave Without Pay Is Book-Keeping, Not Forgiveness
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh rejected the condonation argument. Relying on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Madhav Prasad Sharma, (2011) 01 SC CK 0042, (2011) 2 SCC 212, the Court held that treating a period of absence as leave without pay is an administrative step to keep service records accurate; it does not erase the disciplinary taint, and the petitioner’s contention therefore “holds no water in the eyes of law”.
On his status as a trainee, the Court relied on State of Punjab & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 569, observing that “an employee on probation or under basic training is on test”, that superiors are the best judges of suitability, and that a trainee who fails basic discipline can be terminated under the police regulations without a convoluted inquiry. On the gravity of absence, relying on Om Prakash v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 682, it held that an employee with prolonged unauthorised absence “does not deserve any misplaced sympathy from the Court”, and that domestic distress cannot override institutional discipline. It found “no illegality, procedural impropriety, or irrationality” in the termination, appellate or mercy orders.
What the Court Actually Held
- Treating unauthorised absence as ‘No Work, No Pay’ is an administrative regularisation of records and does not condone the misconduct.
- A constable under basic training is on test; superiors are the best judges of suitability, and a trainee failing basic discipline can be terminated under the police regulations.
- Prolonged unauthorised absence in a disciplined force does not deserve misplaced sympathy; a family emergency did not outweigh institutional discipline here.
- The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the termination and the appellate and mercy orders stand.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many employees assume that once absence is regularised as leave without pay, no further penalty can follow; this ruling, following Supreme Court precedent, says otherwise.
- It underlines that trainees and probationers in uniformed services have far less protection than confirmed employees when it comes to discipline.
- It is a caution to employees facing family emergencies to inform their superiors and apply for leave, rather than simply staying away.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- If a family emergency forces you to stay away, inform your office in writing and apply for leave immediately; silence for weeks can cost you the job.
- Do not rely on the absence later being regularised as ‘No Work, No Pay’ as a defence to disciplinary action.
- Trainees and probationers should be especially careful: courts treat them as still ‘on test’.
For Counsel
- Condonation arguments based on leave-without-pay orders face State of U.P. & Ors. v. Madhav Prasad Sharma; build proportionality arguments on documentary proof of the emergency and any intimation given.
- For the State, State of Punjab & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh and Om Prakash v. State of Punjab & Ors. support termination of trainees for unauthorised absence.
- Exhaust statutory appeal and mercy remedies before the writ, as the petitioner did here.
Key Takeaways
- ‘No Work, No Pay’ regularisation of absence does not amount to condonation of misconduct.
- A trainee constable is on test, and termination for failing basic discipline can be upheld.
- Unexplained prolonged absence in a disciplined force attracts little judicial sympathy.
- The MP High Court found no illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality in the termination of 17 July 2023.
Frequently Asked Questions
If my absence is treated as leave without pay, can I still be dismissed?
Yes, according to this ruling. Following State of U.P. & Ors. v. Madhav Prasad Sharma, the MP High Court held that treating absence as leave without pay only regularises records and does not wipe out the misconduct.
Was the mother’s illness considered?
The petitioner argued it was a mitigating factor. The Court held that domestic distress cannot override institutional discipline in the police, especially for a trainee absent for 115 days without intimation.
What was the final result?
The writ petition was dismissed on 26 October 2026 with no order as to costs. The termination by the SP, Railway, Bhopal and the rejection of the appeal and mercy petition remain in force.
Conclusion
The judgment applies settled Supreme Court principles to a trainee constable and leaves no room for the argument that a ‘No Work, No Pay’ order ends the matter. For uniformed services, it confirms that discipline during training is treated as a test of fitness for the force.
Practical takeaway: Employees, particularly trainees and probationers, must seek leave and intimate their superiors in an emergency; regularisation of absence as leave without pay is not a shield against termination.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com