IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the shockingly disproportionate nature of the punishment of removal from service in the context of the respondent's prolonged absence due to mental illness, highlighting the need for a balanced and fair approach in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

R. Mahadevan, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 31180 of 2014.)

1. The appellants have filed this intra-court appeal, assailing the Order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Judge, allowing the Writ Petition No. 31180 of 2014 filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent herein has filed the aforesaid Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Se.Mu.Aanai.No.AD4/51122/13 dated 30.10.2014 issued by the first appellant herein, quash the same and to direct the first appellant to reinstate the respondent in service as Bill Clerk with all consequential benefits.

3. (i) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respondent/writ petitioner herein has stated that he was appointed as Bill Clerk in the appellant Corporation on 23.04.2009 temporarily and after completion of two years, his service was regularised in the cadre of Bill Clerk with effect from 28.04.1999. While he was working as such, in the month of November 2007, he applied for earned leave from 29.11.2007 to 13.12.2007 by specifically stating that he was going to Erwadi Dargah in Ramanathapuram District to take treatment for his mental illness. Subsequently, he extended his leave without informing the appellants. Therefore, the second appellant issued a charge memo dated 28.06.2010 to the respondent/writ petitioner for his unauthorised absence from 14.12.2007 till the date of charge memo namely 28.06.2010.

(ii) According to the respondent/writ petitioner, he got recovered fully during August 2010 and therefore, he came back to Chennai and submitted his reply dated 12.08.2010 to the charge memo dated 28.06.2010. On receipt of the explanation offered by the respondent/writ petitioner, the appellants, through letter dated 08.12.2010, referred him to the Regional Medical Board, Government General Hospital for getting a certificate of fitness. The Medical Board also issued a certificate of fitness to return to duty on 04.02.2011. However, even before the issuance of certificate of fitness, an enquiry was conducted departmentally in respect of charge memo dated 28.06.2010 and an enquiry report dated 29.10.2010 was submitted holding the charge against the respondent/writ petitioner as proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the second appellant has passed the order dated 02.03.2011, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.03.2011 of the second appellant, the respondent did not file any appeal. Thereafter, the respondent was posted as Bill Clerk by order dated 08.03.2011 of the 2nd appellant. Even after expiry of one year period, he was not paid any increment. While so, the first appellant suo motu issued a show cause notice dated 04.10.2013 calling upon the respondent to explain as to why an appropriate punishment should not be imposed. The respondent/writ petitioner sent replies dated 08.11.2013 and 14.11.2013 in which it was stated that due to his mental illness, he was not in a position to apply for extension of leave. However, no order was passed by the first appellant.

(iii) In such circumstances, the first appellant published a promotion list dated 10.02.2014, in which, the names of the juniors of the respondent/writ petitioner were included, but his name was omitted to be included. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/writ petitioner filed WP No. 4739 of 2014 challenging the promotion list dated 10.02.2014 published by the first appellant, and to direct the appellants to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. In the said writ petition, the respondent herein has impleaded one Vedanayaki as third respondent, to whom, promotion was given by overlooking him. It was contended on behalf of the respondent before the writ court that th