The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality of punishment and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing the need for considering the totality of facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of charges, entire service record, and remaining tenure of the delinquent before interfering with the quantum of punishment.

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India the legality and validity of the order dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Chairman State Industrial Court, Indore (M.P.) is under challenge whereby the petitioner has been punished with an order for compulsory retirement after the departmental enquiry.

2. Succinctly, the necessary facts for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed in the year, 1977 as a Lower Division Clerk and was posted in Labour Court, Shahdol. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk in the year, 1989, thereafter he was again promoted to the post of Head Clerk and was transferred to Labour Court, Ambikapur in the year, 1998.

3. At the time of bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was posted at Ambikapur which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhatisgarh. The petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh and he was transferred from State of Chhatisgarh by order dated 05.04.2003 and by the same order he was relieved. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and it was mentioned in the said order that the enquiry will not be adversely affected pending against him and his joining will be subject to decision of the enquiry. Instead of joining in pursuant to his allocation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner submitted an application to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambikapur on 05.05.2003 vide Annexure P-3 for leave. The petitioner had also given applications to the In-charge, Registrar Industrial Court, Indore by registered AD relating to his illness stating reasons for absence. It is stated that he had applied for medical leave in accordance with the Rules, in that regard he referred the documents Annexure P-4, P-4(a) to P-4(c). It is submitted by the petitioner that his application for grant of Medical Leave was not considered by the competent authority. On the contrary a show cause notice dated 10.09.2003 (Annexure P-5) was issued to him treating the said period as an unauthorized absence from 21.04.2003 as the same amounts to 'misconduct' under Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services conduct Rules, 1965 (hereinafter the same shall be referred as 'Rules-1965'). It is contended that he filed reply to the said show-cause notice, which was sent by Registered AD. He submitted that he was on medical leave since, 28th April, 2003 that he was never relieved by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ambikapur. He did not receive any copy of order by which he was transferred/relieved from the State of Chhatisgarh to the State of Madhya Pradesh.

4. After recovering from the ailment, he had given joining at the Industrial Court, Indore on 03.02.2004 (Annexure P-7). He was directed to join Hoshangabad by order dated 03.02.2004 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, he had joined duty in Labour Court Hoshangabad on 05.02.2004. The respondent no.2 did not consider the leave application and the medical certificate of the petitioner and passed an order for instituting the departmental enquiry against him. He had given an objection to the appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presiding Officer, vide Annexure P-12. The enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rule 1966').

5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment of compulsory retirement is highly disproportionate to the alleged charges levelled against him. He only confined to challenge the order of punishment on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the alleged lapse. He did not challenge the legality and validity of enquiry and order of punishment on merit. He submitted that the present case is not a case of wilful absence from the duty. The petitioner had given information in writing regarding his ailment on 05.05.2003 (Annexur P-3)