The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of willful absence from duty, the definition of misconduct, and the legal principles related to misconduct, negligence in duty, and the scope of interference with the quantum of punishment.

S.C. Das, J.:-

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for the following relief:-

In the above circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships would be pleased to admit the writ petition and after hearing the Respondents issue an appropriate writ or Command declaring the Proceeding initiated by Memo. Dated 16-3-2006 (Annexure-1) illegal, void and non existent; And a command to the Respondents to treat the Petitioner's service without any penalty and accordingly extend all service benefits immediately.

Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for the petitioner and learned Additional GA, Ms. A.S. Lodh for the State respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he joined Tripura Engineering Service on 04.09.1985 and was posted as Assistant Engineer and thereafter, on 22.05.1993, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad-hoc basis. While working as Executive Engineer, he had to proceed on leave at different spell on making proper application under compelling circumstances. On 16.03.2006, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) by a Memo dated 16.03.2006 initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him alleging that he was un-authorizedly absent from duties for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2006 (for 10 days) and again from 16.04.2002 to 31.05.2002 (for 46 days) and further from 01.06.2002 to till initiation of the proceeding i.e. on 15.03.2006 (for about 4 years). The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 16.03.2006 and the inquiry officer submitted report on 24.01.2009 holding that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct, and that he remained un-authorized absent for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2001 for 10 days and 16.04.2002 to 31.05.2002 for 46 days and that while proceeding on leave, he did not hand over the charges of his office to his successor and thereby, committed gross misconduct. For the period from 01.06.2002 to 15.03.2006 though proceeding was initiated, but he was not found guilty of that charge and that period of absence was adjusted against his medical leave and extra-ordinary leave.

The Disciplinary Authority considering the report submitted by the inquiry officer held in guilty and declared the period of 10 days from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2001 and 46 days from 09.04.2002 to 31.05.2002 as "Dies Non", which will neither count on service nor be counted as break in service and also punished him of withholding of one increment of pay, which is next due without any cumulative effect.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the appeal was dismissed.

Hence, this writ petition challenging the order of punishment on the ground of maintainability alleging that the disciplinary proceeding itself was not maintainable in view of the fact that the allegations made does not constitute the basic ingredients of misconduct and further that there was malice in fact, which can be inferred from the attending circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding since the prayer of the petitioner for changing the inquiry officer was rejected and that the inquiry officer himself gathered certain information and recorded it in the disciplinary proceeding to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge.

3. The case of the respondents, in short, is that the petitioner absented himself from duty throwing an application of leave for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2001 and left the office before the leave was sanctioned by the appropriate authority. Again he enjoyed 43 days leave and thereafter, made a prayer to extend the leave for a further period of 46 days from 16.04.2002 to 31.05.2002, but his prayer for extension of leave was not considered in exigencies of public works, whereas, the petitioner though was asked to join the service remained deliberately absent and thereby, committed gross misconduct. He also did not hand over the charges to his successor while was going on leave and the