Dismissal for admitted prolonged absence without sanctioned leave is not shockingly disproportionate.

The appellant was appointed as a Child Development Project Officer on 20 October 2000.

The appellant remained absent for a prolonged period without obtaining sanctioned leave.

The disciplinary authority, after considering her replies, obtaining the Bihar Public Service Commission’s advice and securing approval of the Council of Ministers, dismissed her from service on 9 July 2012.

The appellant challenged the dismissal only in 2016 through CWJC No. 833 of 2016.

Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by failure to supply the list of witnesses and other materials under Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005?

Whether the finding of unauthorised absence was sustainable when the appellant had submitted applications for leave but had not obtained formal sanction?

Whether dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate to the charge of prolonged unauthorised absence and therefore warranted judicial interference?

Whether the appellant’s delay of approximately four years in challenging the dismissal justified dismissal of the writ petition?

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings: a constitutional court does not act as an appellate authority or reappreciate evidence, but may interfere where there is lack of jurisdiction, violation of prescribed procedure causing prejudice, breach of natural justice, absence of evidence, or perversity; this principle was drawn from Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.

Under Rule 153 of the Bihar Service Code, leave cannot be granted to a government servant during suspension, and mere submission of a leave application does not amount to sanctioned leave.

The Court relied on Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v. Educational Appellate Tribunal, (1999) 7 SCC 332, and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620, for the principle that admitted violations need not be independently proved through further evidence or enquiry where no prejudice is caused.

The Court also applied the principle that disciplinary punishment should not be interfered with unless it is shockingly or grossly disproportionate, and treated the prolonged delay in instituting judicial proceedings as a relevant factor.

The Court held that the appellant’s prolonged absence was admitted and that she had produced no order showing that the claimed medical, earned, or other leave had been sanctioned.

The Inquiry Officer had considered her explanation and did not rely on absence alone; the finding was based on her admission, the absence of authorization, and her failure to establish a lawful basis for remaining away from duty.

Since the appellant was under suspension during the relevant period, her claim for post facto regularisation as leave was also inconsistent with Rule 153 of the Bihar Service Code.

The alleged non-supply of the witness list did not cause prejudice because the material fact—her unauthorised absence—was admitted, and admitted facts required no separate proof.

Given that the appellant occupied a responsible public post and had remained absent for more than two years, the Court found that dismissal was not so disproportionate as to justify interference under Article 226.

The four-year delay in challenging the dismissal further weighed against the appellant.

It held that the departmental enquiry was procedurally valid, the finding of unauthorised absence was supported by the record and the appellant’s own admission, and the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment dated 14 August 2018 in CWJC No. 833 of 2016 and the review order dated 3 April 2019 in Civil Review No. 470 of 2018 were affirmed.

The dismissal order contained in Memo No. 3263 dated 9 July 2012 remained undisturbed.