The doctrine of proportionality in service law and administrative law was applied to determine the reasonableness of the punishment imposed.

ORDER :

1. This is an appeal, filed by the appellant-original petitioner, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 24.01.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 15418 of 2019, whereby, the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of dismissal from service of the appellant, passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority vide order dated 28.09.2018 and 20.03.2019, respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present appeal reads thus; The appellant came to be appointed on the post of Assistant Manager with Vijaya Bank vide order dated 15.12.2012 and on completion of the probation period, his services were confirmed. Later on, he was transferred to Jamnagar.

2.1 It is the case of the appellant that he had to proceed on leave with effect from 12.02.2018, on account of medical emergency due to sudden deterioration of health of his mother and his daughter.

2.2 Since, the appellant had not given any intimation, with regard to his absence or leave from his duty to the bank, a communication dated 28.02.2018 was sent to the appellant, intimating him that he had been on unauthorized leave from 12.02.2018. The appellant was also asked to report for duty within the period of three days and to submit his explanation within seven days for his absence from the duty.

2.3 The appellant tendered his explanation, accordingly. However, the same was not accepted and instead, the appellant was issued the charge-sheet on 15.05.2018. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, but, the same was not accepted and the departmental proceedings were initiated against him.

2.4 On 04.08.2018, the appellant received a letter, along with the findings of the inquiry proceedings, from the bank, whereby, the appellant was asked to submit his representation on the findings of the inquiry.

2.5 Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.09.2018, terminating the services of the appellant and also disqualifying him for future employment.

2.6 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which dismissed the same vide order dated 20.03.2019.

2.7 Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, Dated: 28.09.2018, as well as the appellate authority, Dated: 20.03.2019, the appellant preferred the captioned petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned Advocates, Mr. Japee, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has assailed the orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, mainly on the ground of dis-proportionality and severity of the punishment imposed by the Opponent-authorities on the appellant.

3.1 It was submitted that the Opponent-authorities ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had to proceed on leave due to sudden medical emergency of his mother and daughter and therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service with the observation that the “Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” is too harsh and unwarranted in the facts of the present case.

3.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Japee, submitted that after the appellant received the communication dated 28.02.2018, he had replied to the same, immediately and had tendered his explanation that due to medical exigency, he was constrained to leave the duty without prior intimation or approval.

3.3 It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, observed that the punishment of dismissal from service, prima facie, would sound harsh, as the appellant had health issues in his family. However, later on, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the past conduct of the appellant and confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities, which is not permissibl