RAMU Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The situation in this case is such as to place any decision making authority on the horns of dilemma. On the one hand consistency in the callousness of the petitioner to the call of duty and on the other the pressure of equity and sympathy for the irreparable loss the petitioner would suffer along with the members of his family, if the impugned order is confirmed. The task is rendered rather difficult and uneviable in striking a balance between the two. On a very careful consideration of all aspects, both human and disciplinary, I am of the view that a lesser punishment than what has been awarded would meet the ends of proportionality.

(2.) Ramu was appointed as a peon in 1979 in the office of the Munsiff, Kolar. By his irresponsible conduct of remaining unauthorisedly absent, he provoked disciplinary proceedings against him. From 20th November 1979 to 7th December 1979, he remained absent without authorisation from duty and after disciplinary proceedings, he was administered a warning. The second instance was that he remained similarly absent from 23rd August 1982 to 18th December 1982 necessitating an enquiry into his dereliction of duty, which resulted in a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Finally one more enquiry which was a sequel to his absence from duty without authorisation from 21st March 1985 and this resulted with the consequence of removal from service on 5th January 1987. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of dismissal dated 5th January 1987 in this writ petition.

(3.) No discrepancy or irregularity is noticeable in the conduct of the enquiry and the entire disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has rendered himself culpable on account of his own conduct inconsistent with the requirement of disciplined conduct of a government servant.