(1.) Heard
(2.) The charge which is allegedly proved reads as follows:
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that the petitioner-appellant was charged for about one month's unauthorised absence, in respect of which he has shown sufficient evidence. In any way, for one month's unauthorised absence when punishment was imposed, 18 years of regular and faultless service is rendered ineffective. Learned Counsel has urged harshness of the punishment would have promoted atleast of examination of the materials on the basis of which the appellate authority would have decided what would be appropriate quantum of punishment. Learned Counsel for the respondents has, however, tried to persuade us to hold that when for unauthorised absence, removal from service is imposed as punishment and a lenient view is taken by the appellate authority by way of sympathy to the appellant, this Court should not interfere. We have considered all aspects of the matter. A lenient view is different from a decision whether the punishment which is imposed is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Appellate Authority has not adverted to this aspect of the matter and has not decided whether, on the facts of the case, one month absence demanded removal from service and if not, removal from service by wiping out of eighteen years of regular service even for terminal benefits, non-payment of back-wages with continuity of service for all other purposes, would be justified or not thus would be a question which the appellate authority must consider. In view of the above, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment to the limited extent only that matter shall be remitted to the appellate authority to consider afresh whether the present punishment of reinstatement which would be treated as a fresh appointment and which would give no benefit of either of the continuity of service or of terminal benefits of retirement to the appellant herein is justified.