IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT ON THE 20^th OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 440 of 2016 SMT. MAMTA PIPPAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri G.S. Sharma - Advocate with Shri Madhur Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.M. Patel - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER By order dated 21.01.2016, this Court had already directed to petitioner to seek instructions to explain the leave period in the backdrop of fact that the disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have found that petitioner had remained absent from duty unauthorizedly from 12.09.2009 till 2012.

2. Even today, a specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner; however, he was unable to justify the cause of absence. On that basis, it is held that the petitioner remained absent during the aforesaid period.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that before the authorities, the petitioner could not satisfied the authorities in respect of her absence from duties for a long period i.e., 12.09.2009 till 2012. Therefore, authorities have rightly passed the order of termination of petitioner. The appropriate opportunity has already been extended to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order and there is no malafide in issuing the impugned order. Once, the petitioner herself absent from duties for a long period. The impugned order has rightly been passed. It is further submitted the Even in the appeal, the petitioner was not able to show the reason due to her absence for a long period. This fact has also been stated in the reply to the petition, and the averments made therein have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any counter affidavit or rejoinder.

4. The Supreme Court in the case State of Punjab v. P.L. Singla , (2008) 8 SCC 469, it is held that Unauthorised absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline and whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. First is to condone the unauthorised absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorised absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned and the second is to treat the unauthorised absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct. Where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer would take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty would depend upon the nature of service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence.

5. Supreme Court has laid down the scope, extent and parameters of judicial review in disciplinary action. Supreme Court in Railways v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, (2021) 14 SCC 735 has held as under:

“21.1. We will first discuss the scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings. It is well settled that the High Court must not act as an appellate authority, and reappreciate the evidence led before the enquiry officer. We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a departmental enquiry against a public servant.

21.2. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. T