Prolonged intentional unauthorized absence from public service warrants the punishment of compulsory retirement.

The first respondent (the delinquent officer) was an Assistant in the Chennai Corporation. On 03.04.2007, she was permitted to leave Headquarters for six months to visit her husband in Qatar.

She failed to rejoin duty on the expiry of her leave (22.09.2007) and remained unauthorizedly absent for a prolonged period, submitting various leave extensions on medical and maternity grounds which were not sanctioned.

Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The first respondent participated in the enquiry on 01.07.2009 after initial notices were returned due to incorrect address details.

The Disciplinary Authority (Commissioner) imposed the punishment of 'compulsory retirement,' which was subsequently upheld by the Appointment Committee and the Government in revision.

The first respondent challenged this via W.P.No.31282 of 2016, where the writ Court set aside the punishment. The Appellants filed this intra-court appeal to assail that order.

1. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the charge of prolonged unauthorized absence

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice or procedural irregularity regarding the identity of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities

The Court applied the principles of Administrative Law governing disciplinary proceedings and the "Discipline and Appeal Rules" applicable to municipal servants.

The core legal principle dictates that prolonged intentional unauthorized absence by a public servant is a serious misconduct that warrants significant penalty.

Regarding procedural fairness, the court relied on the distinction between an authority acting in an individual capacity as a Disciplinary Authority versus acting as part of a multi-member 'Appointment Committee' acting as an Appellate Authority.

The Court found that the first respondent intentionally overstayed abroad and failed to provide a correct address, which constituted reckless conduct for a public servant.

The Court rejected the writ court's finding that the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were the same; it clarified that while the Commissioner acted as the Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was decided by the "Appointment Committee" via Resolution No.153/10, where the Commissioner merely communicated the collective decision.

The Court observed that the domestic enquiry complied with natural justice as the respondent was given opportunities to submit explanations and participate, which she did on 01.07.2009.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the charges of long-term unauthorized absence were proved and the procedure was fair, the punishment of compulsory retirement was not disproportionate.

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.31282 of 2016.

The Court confirmed that there was no procedural infirmity in the appellate process and declared the respondent's conduct as a public servant to be "reckless". No costs were ordered.