WP No.18035 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11-07-2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

WP No.18035 of 2014

R.Vembulli

..

Petitioner

vs.

The Registrar,

University of Madras,

Centenary Buildings,

Chepauk Campus,

Chennai – 5.

..

Respondent

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

the records of the respondent in his proceedings in mYtyf foj

vz;/vg;1(M) gpupt[-IV/2013/1222 njjp 17^th April 2013 and quash the

same and thereby direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the

services with all back wages and all benefits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.N.Suresh

For Respondent : Ms.V.Sudha

1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No.18035 of 2014

O R D E R

The order of removal from service issued by the respondent-

University dated 17.04.2013, is sought to be quashed in the present writ

petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Peon in the University

of Madras by the respondent on 08.08.2007 and the petitioner joined duty

on 16.08.2007. The petitioner was made permanent on 26.10.2009 after

completion of the probation period of two years. The petitioner remained

unauthorisedly absent for the period from 30.08.2011 to 10.04.2012.

3. The petitioner states that due to some family circumstances

and on account of health issues, he could not report for duty and remained

absent. However, the petitioner states that his absence from duty was not

willful and due to certain compelling reasons.

4. The respondent-Univeristy initiated departmental

2/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No.18035 of 2014

disciplinary proceedings and issued a charge memorandum under Rule

17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An

Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn conducted an enquiry. The

petitioner conceded the charges and pleaded guilty with reference to the

allegtion of unauthorised absence. Thus, the Enquiry Officer hold that the

charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The report of the

Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, who in turn

imposed the penalty of removal from service. Thus, the petitioner is

constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though

the petitioner admitted the allegations of unauthorised absence, the absence

was not willful and due to certain compelling circumstances. Thus a lenient

view is to be taken in respect of the mitigating circumstances pleaded by the

delinquent official.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

objected the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that

3/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP No.18035 of 2014

the petitioner was a chronic absentee. It is not the case where on one

occasion, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent. In fact, the

petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 18.02.2011 to 01.03.2011

(12 days) and 03.03.2011 to 05.04.2011 (34 days). The petitioner submitted

an explanation stating that he could not report for duty due to his family

circumstances. Thus, the respondent had taken a lenient view on

compassionate grounds and warned about the lapses and the respondent

further informed that the petitioner should be more careful in attending the

office duty in future. The petitioner was further informed by the respondent

that non-compliance of the office orders would be viewed seriously and

suitable actions would be initiated against the writ petitioner based on the

materials already available on records. Even thereafter, the petitioner

submitted Earned Leave applications on medical certificate for his absence

from duty and the said leave period was regulated as 'Leave on Loss of Pay'

vide proceedings dated 23.05.2009.

7. The lear