Unauthorized absence from duty is a major misconduct. Courts will not interfere with a dismissal order unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

CM-4706-CWP-2026

The present application has been filed for hearing the main writ petition which is pending in this Court for the last more than 15 years.

Notice of the application be given to counsel opposite.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and raises no objection.

In view of the above, the application is allowed and on the joint request, the main case is taken up for consideration.

Main case

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the orders passed by the authorities dated 28.07.2000 (Annexure P-5) by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of unauthorized absence and to the order dated 27.10.2003 (Annexure P-9) passed in appeal preferred against order dated 28.07.2000 (Annexure P-5) which was dismissed, as well as to the order dated 03.12.2004 (Annexure P-11) rejecting the revision petition. Further, challenge is to the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (for short – ‘the Tribunal’) by which the order passed by authority concerned, dismissing petitioner from service, has been upheld.

2. It may be noticed that in the present case, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 26.06.1998 by the department as he remained absent from his duty without any authorization for a period of more than four and a half month. After chargesheeting the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated wherein the allegations alleged of unauthorized absence were proved and the competent authority passed an order on 28.07.2000 dismissing the petitioner from service.

3. The appeal preferred against said dismissal order as well as the revision petition filed against order of appeal was also dismissed which led to the filing of the original application by the petitioner before the Tribunal which also stood dismissed on 26.11.2008, leading to the filing of the present petition.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argues that though, petitioner remained absent from duty but the same was due to the fact that wife of the petitioner was ill which factor has not been taken into consideration while holding the petitioner guilty of the allegations alleged against him so as to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if it is assumed that the allegations alleged against petitioner are duly proved, but the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is not proportionate to the charges alleged and proved and therefore, the punishment of dismissal is liable to be set aside and the said aspect has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in the correct perspective.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 on the other submits that once it is not disputed that there was an unauthorized absence from duty by the petitioner for a period of more than four and a half month and keeping in view said factum, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon petitioner is perfectly valid and legal. Learned counsel further submits that qua the argument raised that the punishment imposed is not proportionate to the allegations alleged and proved, it may be noticed that there were some other similar defaults on previous occasion at the hands of the petitioner where also he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a long period. Hence, the impugned order passed by the authorities imposing the punishment of dismissal