The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in the punishment order and the importance of considering willful absence and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 19/21.9.2005, 17.1.2008 and 16.11.2010 passed by the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Valsad, Development Commissioner and Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, and prayed, inter alia, that:-

"8 (A)Quash and set aside the punishment order dated 19/21.9.2005 passed by the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Valsad, Annexure-A to this petition, and

(B) Quash and set aside the order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Development Commissioner, Annexure-B to this petition, and

(C) Quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Annexure-C to this petition, and further be pleased to grant all the consequential benefits to the petitioner, and

(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 19/21.9.2005, 17.1.2008, 16.11.2010, Annexure-A, B and C, to this petition, and

(E) Award the cost of the present petition, and

(F) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may be considered as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was serving as a ‘Junior Clerk’ in the Public Health Centre at Limjar Taluka Vansada, District: Valsad and was transferred to Public Health Center at Pindval Taluka, Dharampur by way of promotion to the post of ‘Senior Clerk’, whereby the petitioner had reported for duty on 31.12.1980. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from his duty from 1.1.1981 to 1.6.1995, in view of the criminal complaint lodged against the petitioner under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner has misappropriated certain amount of Diwali Festival advance of certain employees of Limjar, Public Health Centre. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No.94 of 1983.

2.1 Due to the registration of a criminal complaint against the petitioner, it had affected the moral of the petitioner and due to which petitioner was under the trauma and was demoralized. Under these circumstances, the petitioner could not attend the duties from 1.1.1981. In the said Criminal Case, after the trial, the competent Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of the charges leveled against him by judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.2.1995.

2.2 After the acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal case, the petitioner went to report for duty, but the petitioner was not permitted to join the duty. Therefore, on 1.6.1995 the petitioner gave a letter to the authority and requested that the petitioner may be allowed to resume his duty and also produced the copy of the operative portion of the judgment and order of acquittal. Inspite of that the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duty. The petitioner thereafter, also continuously requested the respondent authority to allow him to resume his duty by submitting written representations and the petitioner had visited the office frequently and had made oral representations with a request to allow him to resume his duty. Despite repeated requests by petitioner to allow him to resume duty, as he was not allowed to resume duty, he had written a little bit strongly worded letter dated 27.2.2003. Thereafter, the respondent authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner on charges of unauthorized absenteeism on duty and other charges by issuing a charge sheet dated 22.7.2003 to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet vide defense statement dated 2.9.2003. Thereafter, inquiry officer came to be appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, who conducted the departmental inquiry. Before the inquiry officer also the petitioner submitted his representation dated 13.4.2004, 17.4.2004, 19.4.2004 and a detailed brief dated