Habitual unauthorized absence for more than half of service tenure justifies the penalty of removal.

The applicant was appointed as a Khallasi on compassionate grounds on June 11, 2009

During his total service of six years and one month, he remained unauthorizedly absent for three years and eight months

He had a prior history of four disciplinary actions for absence, including a 2013 penalty of compulsory retirement that was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Authority on lenient grounds

The current proceedings arose from a charge memo dated September 20, 2014, for unauthorized absence from April 10, 2014, to August 18, 2014

Despite acknowledging the charge sheet and nominating a defense assistant, the applicant failed to attend the inquiry

An ex-parte inquiry found the charges proved, leading to his removal from service on July 30, 2015

His subsequent appeal and revision petition were dismissed

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a violation of natural justice due to the applicant's alleged lack of knowledge of the inquiry.

2. Whether the quantum of punishment (removal from service) was disproportionate to the gravity of the offense of unauthorized absence.

The Tribunal applied sub-para (k) of Para 15 of Master Circular No. 67, which outlines the procedure for conducting ex-parte inquiries when a delinquent employee fails to participate despite notice

It further relied on the principle that habitual absence constitutes "unbecoming conduct" for a public servant, and that employees appointed on compassionate grounds bear a heightened responsibility to maintain service discipline

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of ignorance regarding the proceedings, noting that he had signed a receipt for the charge sheet, submitted a written reply, and actively nominated a defense assistant who requested adjournments

The Tribunal characterized the applicant’s conduct as "habitual" and "casual," emphasizing that he had already been granted a "lifeline" by a previous reinstatement after a compulsory retirement order in 2013

Given that the applicant was absent for more than half of his total tenure (3 years and 8 months out of 6 years and 1 month), the Tribunal held that he had failed to demonstrate the responsibility expected of a public servant

The court reasoned that since the respondents had previously taken liberal views and the applicant failed to reform, the penalty of removal was justified and did not warrant judicial interference

The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the orders of removal, as upheld by the Appellate and Revising Authorities, were maintained

No costs were awarded.