Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained on two substantial grounds. Firstly, when this Court had remitted back the matter through its order dated 10.04.2012 in WP.No.886 of 2007, the very purpose for such remission was to reduce the original punishment of compulsory retirement. The order came to be passed on, by relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which it was held that in cases of unauthorised absence, the punishment of removal from service would be excessive and therefore, the High Courts require to remit back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration of the punishments on the ground of disproportionality. While that being so, the only option available to the respondents is to impose a lesser punishment. However, in total disregard to the purpose for which the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority, the original punishment has been reiterated in the present impugned order. On this ground, the punishment cannot be sustained.

5. On the issue of disproportionality of a punishment is concerned, the same has been dealt in various decisions of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the effect that the ultimate punishment requires to be in confirmity with the gravity of the charges. In one such decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of R.Jayakumar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police and another passed in W.P.No.26072 of 2004, dated 08.08.2008, the High Court had placed reliance on three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and interfered with the punishment of dismissal for the period of unauthorised absence of 21 days and directed the delinquent therein to be reinstated into services without the benefits of pay for the period of absence. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

17. In (1999) 9 SCC 86 (Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India and others) the deliquent Government servant was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence for 7 days. Observing that dismissal was too harsh, Supreme Court directed the Appellant to reinstate with continuity in service with all other benefits but limiting the back wages to 50% only for the period between dismissal to the date of passing of the order by the Court. In the present case, Petitioner was absent for 21 days. It is one of the clear instance where the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge.

6. However, the charge of unauthorised absence cannot be left unnoticed, particularly, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the petitioner had earlier indulged in instances of unauthorised absence. By taking into account the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner's wages for the period of his absence is withheld, without affecting the continuity of his service, as well as other service benefits, the ends of justice could be secured.