Habitual unauthorised absence demonstrates lack of devotion to duty and justifies dismissal from service.

The petitioner, an Assistant in the Madras High Court Registry, faced three disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules concerning unauthorised absence.

In the first proceeding, he was alleged to have remained absent from 28 August 2019 onwards after availing leave on medical grounds; Charges 1 and 2 were held proved, while Charge 3 was not proved.

In the second proceeding, he was alleged to have been absent from 2 July 2021 onwards and to have failed to submit an explanation; both charges were held proved.

In the third proceeding, he was alleged to have remained absent from 7 June 2023 onwards, submitted a belated leave application, and failed to respond to the disciplinary proceedings; all charges were held proved in an ex parte enquiry.

The petitioner had previously been punished with censure and withholding of one increment for similar instances of unauthorised absence.

The Registry stated that, during more than 23 years of service, he had availed 1,377 days of leave and remained unauthorisedly absent for 1,235 days, amounting to more than ten years of non-working days.

After furnishing the enquiry reports and considering the materials, the Registrar General dismissed him from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules on 4 April 2025.

The petitioner’s appeals were rejected on 22 September 2025, leading to the present writ petitions.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the findings of guilt for unauthorised absence were vitiated by violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity.

Whether the petitioner’s repeated unauthorised absence, failure to communicate with the Registry, and failure to participate in the later enquiries justified dismissal from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, particularly in view of the petitioner’s explanation that his absence was caused by health issues.

The Court applied Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which governs major-penalty disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, which requires devotion to duty and prohibits conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

It also applied Rule 8(viii) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, under which dismissal from service may be imposed as a major penalty.

The Court held that habitual unauthorised absence constitutes serious misconduct and demonstrates lack of devotion to duty.

Relying on State Bank of India v. V. Indira Nawada (deceased) & Others, 2026 (2) WLR 316, and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Prakash, 2024 INSC 870, the Court recognised that prolonged absence without proper communication may justify severe disciplinary action and may, in appropriate circumstances, be treated as abandonment of service.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and judicial restraint in reviewing disciplinary findings, holding that courts should not interfere where the employee was afforded a reasonable opportunity and the punishment is not disproportionate.

The Court found that the petitioner’s absence was not an isolated or merely technical breach. He had repeatedly remained absent for substantial periods, had previously suffered penalties for similar misconduct, and had accumulated 1,235 days of unauthorised absence in addition to extensive leave availed during service.

Although the petitioner relied on medical grounds in relation to the 2019 absence, the Court noted that the medical and leave applications were submitted belatedly, while no medical proof was produced for the subsequent proceedings relating to 2021 and 2023.

The Court also held that the petitioner had been given adequate procedural opportunities: he participated through an Advocate in the first enquiry, while the later ex parte enquiries followed repeated attempts at service and his failure to appear or communicate.

Given the petitioner’s repeated misconduct, prior minor penalties, prolonged non-attendance, and the operational inconvenience caused to the Registry, the Court concluded that dismissal was neither excessive nor disproportionate.

All three writ petitions were dismissed, the order of dismissal dated 4 April 2025 and the appellate order dated 22 September 2025 were left undisturbed, and no order as to costs was made. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.