Prolonged unauthorized absence and failure to join transferred post by a medical professional warrants dismissal from service.

The appellant, a Specialist (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) under Employees State Insurance Services, was transferred from Bhopal to Dewas on 30.06.1992.

She failed to join her new posting and remained unauthorizedly absent for approximately four years.

Her defense was that her eldest daughter suffered from Psychomotor Epilepsy, requiring constant medical attention.

A departmental enquiry was conducted for disobedience and unauthorized absence, resulting in her dismissal from service.

The appellant challenged this dismissal in Writ Petition No. 6547 of 2005, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 08.01.2026.

The present writ appeal was filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against that dismissal.

1. Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority regarding unauthorized absence were perverse or violated the principles of natural justice so as to warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.

2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct of four years of unauthorized absence by a medical professional.

The court applied the established scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, holding that a writ court does not act as an appellate authority and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

The court referenced the doctrine of proportionality, noting it is only invokable when the punishment "shocks the conscience of the Court".

The court maintained that the application of principles regarding "wilful absence" is fact-dependent, referencing precedents: Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College (2009), Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police (2004), Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012), and Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri (2009).

The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had comprehensively examined the appellant's medical difficulties regarding her daughter and the procedural integrity of the departmental enquiry.

It held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity or perversity in the findings.

Regarding proportionality, the court reasoned that a medical doctor holding a vital public post who remains absent for four years commits "serious misconduct".

The court concluded that such a prolonged absence justified the extreme penalty of dismissal, and the disciplinary authority's decision-making process was legally sound and in accordance with service rules.

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026. No order as to costs was made.