The court emphasized the importance of upholding discipline and integrity in public service, and justified the punishment of removal from service for chronic unauthorised absence.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of removal from service imposed against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk in Jail Department on 17.05.1969. He has put in nearly 15 years of service as Record Clerk. During his service as Record Clerk, his service was regularised with effect from 17.05.1969 and his probation was also declared. After declaration of his probation, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 07.04.1984. From 07.04.1984 to 22.03.1997, he served as Junior Assistant in Central Prison, Chennai. He applied for medical leave for his ill health from 22.11.95 to May, 1996. The petitioner, without taking prior permission, remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. Therefore, the charges were framed against him under 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. After oral enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his finding holding him guilty of all the charges. Again, he was given reasonable opportunity to submit his final representation, but the petitioner did not submit his second explanation. However, the Superintendent of Central Prison/3rd respondent herein, after examining the minutes of the enquiry officer with connected papers, awarded punishment of removal from service with effect from 26.03.97. Aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Prison, Chennai. But the same was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not put forth any fresh points. As against that, second appeal petition was filed to the Inspector General of Prisons. But the same was also rejected by order dated 13.08.98, as there was no provision for second appeal. Yet again, he has given an appeal to the Government on 28.08.98. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has filed the Original Application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of removal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rendered 27 years of service. While so, the major punishment of removal from service for the alleged delinquents of unauthorised absence, is exorbitant punishment. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside in view of several judgments of Supreme Court, holding that the punishment should not be disproportionate to the alleged offence committed by the delinquents.

4. In his further submission, it was contended that even in the Police Department also Director General of Police has passed an order in R.C.No.243881/AP.1(1)/90 P.B.No.681, Madras-4, dated 30.10.1990 directing that for the delinquency of unauthorised absence, major punishment should not be imposed. Whileso, the present impugned punishment of removal from service for unauthorised absence is self-contrary to the orders passed by the Director General of Police. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment is liable to be set aside. Thirdly, it was contended that even if the petitioner should be dismissed from service for unauthorised absence, by taking into account his long length of 27 years of service, in order to avoid harm to the entire family of the delinquent, the order of removal from the service should be modified into one of compulsory retirement, so that the family members would be in a position to receive the pensionary benefits, as he has put in 27 years of unblemished service.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the Superintendent of Central Prison/3rd respondent herein, after examining the connected records, awarded the punishment of removal from service with effect from 26.03.97. As against that, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Prisons, but the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has filed the second appeal, but the same w