more them to join duty. Considering that the petitioner was an habitual absentee, a charge memo, dated 20.3.95 was framed against the petitioner under Rule ... which is as follows:
"6. It is submitted that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline. It is also submitted that the parameters
daughters and her in-laws, was not a case of habitual absenteeism. Therefore, the imposition of dismissal was not valid. Even that case
force is a disciplined force and if the respondent is a habitual absentee then there is no reason to ignore this fact at the time
second
respondent was extended due to poor performances and habitual absenteeism and it
was also stated that the workman during the probation period
observed as follows:
"8. So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note
usefully extracted hereunder:
"6. It is submitted that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline. It is also submitted that the parameters ... been rightly exercised.
8. So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note
position clear.
Para 8: So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note
position clear.
Para 8: "So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note
employment. It also found that he was not a habitual absentee and therefore, the dismissal imposed on him was disproportionate. Though the workman claimed that
held as follows:-
"6. It is submitted that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline. It is also submitted that the parameters ... been rightly exercised.
8. So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note
