The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of proportionality in reviewing the excessive nature of the dismissal order in light of the petitioner's medical condition and previous punishments awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of dismissal of service of the petitioner in proceeding no. A.N1(1)/ 8999/ 2006 dated 06.02.2006 of the third respondent which was confirmed by the second respondent vide his proceedings in Proc.No.O.P1(1)/ 26887/ 2007 dated 20.05.2007 and further confirmed by the proceedings of the first respondent in Government Order (1t) No.531 dated 14.09.2007 so as to quash the same and reinstate the petitioner into service.)

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the 3rd respondent herein on 06.02.2007 which was confirmed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 20.05.2007 and also by the first respondent vide order dated 14.09.2007.

2. The petitioner was appointed in the Department of Revenue Administration as a Junior Assistant, on 22.10.1997 on compassionate grounds. The petitioner had been in service for about 10 years.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Hypertensive patient and was advised to take rest and thus the petitioner was unable to attend the office on various dates reported in the charge sheet as constituting unauthorised absence /leave /staying away from duty. The Charge Memo dated 03.06.2006 was issued to the petitioner which contained 4 charges viz.

4. The Disciplinary Authority on finding that the petitioner was in the habit of availing leave without prior permission and sending leave letters belatedly and staying away from duty unauthorizedly issued the above charge memo under Rule 17(b) proposing removal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charges. The petitioner submitted that in view of his medical condition viz., High Blood Pressure, he was on leave. However, the Enquiry Officer finding that the explanation was not convincing held that all the 4 charges were proved. After the copy of the entire report was furnished to the petitioner and on obtaining his explanation to the said report and after enquiry the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that all the 4 charges were proved. It was further found that he had been habitually abstaining from duty, and that on earlier occasions, lesser punishment was awarded, however, the petitioner continued to commit the same lapse, thus the 3rd respondent passed orders on 06.02.2007, dismissing the petitioner from service. The above order was affirmed by the Appellate Authori