Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner states that due to some family circumstances and on account of health issues, he could not report for duty and remained absent. However, the petitioner states that his absence from duty was not willful and due to certain compelling reasons.

4. The respondent-Univeristy initiated departmental https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis disciplinary proceedings and issued a charge memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry. The petitioner conceded the charges and pleaded guilty with reference to the allegtion of unauthorised absence. Thus, the Enquiry Officer hold that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn imposed the penalty of removal from service. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner admitted the allegations of unauthorised absence, the absence was not willful and due to certain compelling circumstances. Thus a lenient view is to be taken in respect of the mitigating circumstances pleaded by the delinquent official.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent objected the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner was a chronic absentee. It is not the case where on one occasion, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent. In fact, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 18.02.2011 to 01.03.2011 (12 days) and 03.03.2011 to 05.04.2011 (34 days). The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that he could not report for duty due to his family circumstances. Thus, the respondent had taken a lenient view on compassionate grounds and warned about the lapses and the respondent further informed that the petitioner should be more careful in attending the office duty in future. The petitioner was further informed by the respondent that non-compliance of the office orders would be viewed seriously and suitable actions would be initiated against the writ petitioner based on the materials already available on records. Even thereafter, the petitioner submitted Earned Leave applications on medical certificate for his absence from duty and the said leave period was regulated as 'Leave on Loss of Pay' vide proceedings dated 23.05.2009.

12. Therefore, this Court has to consider whether the punishment of removal from service in this case, is excessive or not. The facts are not disputed the unauthorised absence on three occasions were established and on two occasions, the respondent had taken a lenient view and regulated the period of leave as 'Loss of Pay'. Only during the third occasion, when the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for about 184 days, the respondent had initiated departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the disciplinary action initiated against the writ petitioner.

14. When the charges are admitted by the delinquent official, the Supreme Court held that there is no scope for interfering with the orders of punishment unless there are certain acceptable reasons. No doubt, even in cases where the charges of unauthorised absence are admitted by the delinquent official and if such unauthorised absence is sufficiently explained, then the Authorities are expected to take a lenient view and impose minor penalties. In other words, if the unauthorised absence for one spell wherein the charges are framed and admitted by the delinquent official, then the punishment of removal from service was considered as harsh. However, in respect of habitual absentees, no such lenient view can be taken as the unauthorised absence, are to be considered as willfull. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in each case plays a pivotal role and in the present case, the case of the writ petitioner was considered twice in respect of his unauthorised absence and the leave period was regulated. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis