Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Sureshrao Waghmare, was appointed as a Peon in the District Court, Ahmednagar on 11.10.2001 and was made permanent from 18.04.2006. He worked at different stations without any blemish for several years. In 2015, his mother became seriously ill, requiring him to avail excessive leave. He could not take permission on some occasions and sometimes had no leave balance, but there was no mala fide intention. The Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.1 – District Judge, Ahmednagar) passed an order dated 14.10.2016 removing him from service on account of habitual absence. The petitioner appealed, but the Appellate Authority (Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Mumbai) confirmed the order on 29.07.2017. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner argued that the punishment was disproportionate and that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated. The respondents argued that the petitioner was habitual absentee and had disobeyed transfer orders. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the findings of fact by the disciplinary authority were based on evidence and could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The court also held that the punishment of removal for habitual absence was not disproportionate. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Habitual Absence - Removal from Service - Petitioner, a Peon in District Court, was removed for habitual absence - Disciplinary Authority found charges proved based on evidence of unauthorized absence - Appellate Authority confirmed - High Court held that findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction - Punishment of removal for habitual absence is not disproportionate (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of removal from service for habitual absence is proportionate and whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by any procedural irregularity.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of removal from service dated 14.10.2016 and the appellate order dated 29.07.2017 are upheld.
Law Points
- Habitual absence without sufficient cause constitutes misconduct
- Disciplinary authority's findings based on evidence not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction
- Proportionality of punishment of removal for habitual absence is not disproportionate
