ORDER

1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.6.2004 (Annx.P/6), whereby, he was removed from the services and the order dated 22.12.2004 (Annex.P/8), whereby, his appeal against the order of removal has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in short are that petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2 as Process Writer on 14.7.1995. In the month of October 2003 (Annx.P/1), he was served with the notice along with the charge sheet, memo of charges, list of witnesses and other relevant documents to explain as to why a departmental inquiry should not be initiated against him on account of his misconduct of unauthorized leave and frequently remaining absent from duty. There were four charges against the petitioner. They are as under :-

“(i) Despite the fact that the petitioner was informed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karera on 10.4.2003 that no “casual leave” was available in his account, the petitioner made an application and unauthorizedly remained absent and availed casual leave for 23.6.2003, 24.6.2003 and 27.6.2003.

(ii) As per Appendix “A” of the charge memo, the petitioner remained absent for 28 days without any application whatsoever.

(iii) The petitioner was earlier served with the show cause notice on 20.9.2002 for his indiscipline of remaining absent. He submitted his undertaking on 27.9.2002 that in future, he would not commit such mistake. Despite that, as per Appendix “B” of the charge memo, he availed as many as 47 days of “earned leave” unauthorizedly without obtaining sanction between 8.10.2002 to 2.9.2003.

(iv) Despite the fact that petitioner remained absent on 8th and 9th July, 2003, he illegally signed the attendance register to show his presence on those days.”

3. On the basis of aforesaid charges, it was stated that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of rules 3 and 7 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) rules, 1965 and, therefore, it attracts the punishment as per rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

4. After conducting the departmental enquiry, the order of removal of the petitioner was passed on 25.6.2004 (Annx.P/6) which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.12.2004 (Annex.P/8).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that not only the punishment is exorbitantly harsh but the long absence of the petitioner was on account of unforeseen, unavoidable and domestic problem which has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. He submits that the charge of unauthorized leave of 28 days is not such a grave misconduct which would necessarily require punishment of removal, therefore, some lesser punishment should have been awarded.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the petition and contended that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed as there is no infirmity, whatsoever, in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is contended by the counsel for the respondents that overall conduct of the petitioner has to be considered for the purposes of judging proportionality of punishment and, if the same is done, it would appear that the petitioner is a highly indisciplined employee. On account of his indisciplined behavior of remaining absent without sanction of leave, he was given a show cause notice on 20.9.2002. In turn, he had given his undertaking on 27.9.2002 that he would not commit such mistake. Even after giving an undertaking, he took as many as 47 Earned leave within a period of less than one year commencing from 8.10.2002 to 2.9.2003. Furthermore, Appendix “A” of the charge sheet clearly demonstrates that between 12.10.2002 to 18.2.2003, he remained absent for 28 days. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the punishment of removal awarded to the petitioner was just and proper.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Civil Judge Class-II, was appointed