JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 22^nd January, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, the OA), being OA 1581 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Tribunal refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner being proceeding no.3 dated 05^th January, 2005.

Mr. Sanjib Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the proceeding no.3 dated 05^th January, 2005, the order of punishment was issued by the respondent no.3 on 22^nd August, 2005. It would be explicit from the records that on the self-same date the period of absence for which the order of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner, was condoned by the respondents and leave was granted regularizing the said period of absence. Having thus regularized the period of absence, the misconduct stood condoned and it was not open to the respondents to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same.

He argues that in service jurisprudence, dismissal from service is akin to civil death. The petitioner’s conduct was not questionable and the punishment imposed is very harsh and disproportionate, affecting the life and livelihood of the petitioner. The respondents also violated the principle of natural justice while conducting the proceedings.

Drawing our attention to the order of the appellate authority, he submits that the grounds of challenge in the appeal were not dealt with appropriately and the statutory appeal was rejected taking note of the previous acts of the petitioner and the order was passed going beyond tethers of the chargesheet. In view of such infirmities, explicit on record, interference is called for in the present writ petition.

Mr. Sirsanyo Bandyopadhyay, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, however, denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner. Drawing our attention to the affidavits filed by the respondents, he submits that the petitioner was appointed on 1^st July, 2002. Prior to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings being proceeding no.3 dated 05^th January, 2005 which culminated in an order of dismissal for unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty, the petitioner was earlier proceeded twice by the respondents for unauthorized absence and penalized. That apart, on four other occasions, the petitioner was given minor penalties for unauthorized absence. In each of the earlier proceedings, a lenient view was taken and the respondents restrained themselves from imposing the major penalty of dismissal. However, the laches on the part of the petitioner continued. He neither did attend his work nor did he contest the disciplinary proceedings and in the said backdrop, upon establishment of the charges, the respondents had no other option but to impose the punishment of dismissal.

He contends that the arguments as advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the issuance of the order of dismissal and condonation of period of absence simultaneously had the effect of condoning the misconduct, cannot be acceded to since any consequential order directing how the period of absence of an employee should be accounted, is an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not affect or supersede the order imposing punishment. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. Harihar Gopal reported in 1969 SLR 274 and in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L. Singla reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469.

Mr. Bandyopadhyay further argues that there was no pleading in the OA nor in the statutory appeal to the effect that the issuance of the order dated 22^nd August, 2005, as annexed at page 45 of the writ petition needs t