The punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate for unauthorized absence, and compulsory retirement is a more appropriate disciplinary measure, especially for long-serving employees.

ORDER :

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under:

While the 1^st petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in PUSHE Power house, Masinagudi, Kundah Generation Circle, TNEB, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo dated 15.06.2004 containing three charges.

Charge No.1:

2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted an Enquiry Officer and all the charges held to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, 2^nd respondent furnished the copy of the report of a Enquiry Officer to the 1^st petitioner and after receipt of further representation from the 1^st petitioner, the 2^nd respondent afforded opportunities on number of occasions to the 1^st petitioner to appear in person and make a submission. However, the 1^st petitioner failed to avail such opportunities. In view of the same, the 2^nd respondent passed an order dated 24.11.2008 removing the 1^st petitioner from service, after accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st petitioner filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent but the said appeal was rejected by the 1^st respondent through memo No.1127/103/M.18/M.185/2009-I, dated 24.07.2010. It is aggrieved by the said order of removal dated 24.11.2008, as confirmed by memo dated 24.07.2010, the present writ petition has been filed by the 1^st petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 1^st petitioner died and hence, the petitioners 2 to 5 herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased/1^st petitioner.

4. As seen from the charges, which are extracted herein above, the charges 1 & 2 relate to absenteeism from service without submitting proper leave application and the third charge is about habitual absentisim of the 1^st petitioner resulting in imposition of punishment on the 1^st petitioner on number of occasions. As already noted above, all the charges were held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and the same was accepted by the 2^nd respondent/Disciplinary Authority. It is not in dispute that the 1^st petitioner failed to report to duty after expiry of the leave for which he had submitted a proper application i.e., for the period of commencing from 16.02.2004 to 24.02.2004. Though the petitioner claimed to have submitted a subsequent application seeking extension of earned leave, admittedly the said application was not submitted in proper form and the 1^st petitioner had in fact submitted a consolidate application for sanction of leave and offered to rejoin the service only on 11.08.2004. Thus, it is evident that the 1^st petitioner, who availed leave from 16.02.2004 to 24.02.2004 has reported duty only on 11.08.2004 i.e., almost after lapse of six months. The 1^st petitioner remained absent from the services without proper sanction of leave for a period of six months. The 1^st petitioner who is holding the post of Officer in the respondent/Board remained absent without proper sanction of leave for six months. The period of absence of the 1^st petitioner from 25.02.2004 to 10.08.2004 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered punishment on earlier occasions for the same misconduct of unauthorized absence. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is also noticed that the petitioner was afforded number of opportunities to make his submissions in person before the 2^nd respondent by issuing memos dated 15.02.2007, 18.12.2007 and 25.02.2008. Inspite of affording such opportunities, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunities and appears to have made a claim for consideration of his name for promotion instead of explaining the reasons for his absence.

5. From the perus