applicant.
He mainly contended that the applicant is a habitual absentee and he had
been declared as 'Deserter' in several occasions as follows ... fourth time the applicant had been declared a deserter
due to habitual absenteeism. As such, the Disciplinary Authority
determined that the applicant was unfit
case, the issue revolves around is whether the
applicant is a habitual absentee or not and the Removal of Service
of the applicant ... applicant and came to a conclusion that the
applicant is a habitual absentee, therefore they confirmed the order
of the disciplinary authority
stated that the applicant's husband was a habitual absentee
and inspite of several opportunities given to the applicant's husband, he could
Allowance. The
learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was a habitual
absentee and would have continued to remain absent without earning his
livelihood
from duty and not admitting
his mistakes. The applicant is an habitual absentee was extended enough
opportunity to correct his mistakes and has miserably failed
respondents have filed reply stating that the applicant had been a
habitual absentee and her absence from duty was unauthorized. Following
the recommendation
Head Quarters. It was also ascertained that he
was a habitual unauthorised absentee due to his posting at a distant place
from his home town
leniency. The applicant had pointed out that other
employees who faced similar absenteeism charges were given lesser
punishments without prior leave approval. The counsel argued ... submissions. The primary contention presented was that the
applicant habitually engaged in abrupt and unauthorized absenteeism from
his duties without any prior intimation, and only
M Jagadeesan vs M/O Defence on 28 August, 2025
1 OA No. 567/2020
G Mohanammal vs M/O Railways on 18 June, 2018
1 OA 103/2017
CENTRAL
