Removal from service for unauthorized absence requires sympathetic reconsideration of long unblemished service.

The applicant, Suma O.R, was a Post Graduate Teacher in Maths with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS), commencing service in 1994.

After multiple transfers, she joined KV, Kirandul, on May 2, 2008.

She was granted leave to join her husband in Bahrain from May 5, 2008, to June 22, 2008, with a direction to rejoin duty on June 23, 2008.

However, she did not rejoin and applied for Earned Leave for three months (June 23, 2008, to September 23, 2008), and subsequently sought an extension for another three months from September 24, 2008.

The applicant claimed she was under the impression her leave was granted and that she was suffering from Rheumatic Arthritis, preventing her from rejoining.

The 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, issued Annexure A1 order on May 18, 2009, invoking Article 81 (d)(6) of the Education Code, ordering her deemed removal from service with retrospective effect from June 23, 2008.

The applicant submitted numerous representations against Annexure A1, including an appeal (Annexure A2) on May 9, 2020, and a representation (Annexure A3) on August 11, 2020.

Following a Tribunal direction (Annexure A4) in O.A No. 366 of 2021, the 1st respondent rejected her appeal and confirmed Annexure A1 via Annexure A5 on September 20, 2021.

1. Whether the deemed removal of the applicant from service vide Annexure A1, confirmed by Annexure A5, warrants reconsideration despite her voluntary abandonment of duty.

2. Whether the long unblemished service of the applicant and the principles laid down in *Mangilal Kajodia v. Union of India and Ors.* [(2022) 2 SCC 723] necessitate a sympathetic consideration and a lighter penalty.

The court applied Article 81 (d)(6) of the Education Code, under which the applicant's deemed removal from service was originally ordered.

It also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Mangilal Kajodia v. Union of India and Ors.* [(2022) 2 SCC 723], which held that removing an employee from service constitutes a harsh disciplinary measure, especially when considering long periods of unblemished service.

The principle of providing an opportunity of being heard and the requirement for compassionate consideration for employees with substantial service records were also implicitly applied.

The Tribunal acknowledged the respondents' contentions regarding the applicant's incongruous leave applications, failure to respond to communications, and the school's suffering due to her absence.

It found "numerous incongruities" in the applicant's contentions, noting that her leave applications were not officially granted after June 23, 2008, and that she had failed to respond to official communications.

Despite these findings, the Tribunal determined that Annexure A5 required reconsideration for two primary reasons.

Firstly, the applicant had nearly 14 years of unblemished service, which was not considered when the Annexure A1 removal order was passed.

Secondly, the Tribunal found the principles in *Kajodia*, which characterize removal from service as a harsh measure, directly applicable.

It opined that such an extreme punishment should have been avoided given her 14 years of good service, suggesting a lighter penalty would have been more appropriate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the allegation of unauthorized absence was raised against her for the first time.

It directed the 2nd respondent (Joint Commissioner (Trg) and Appellate Authority, KVS) to reconsider the applicant's appeal afresh, with a sympathetic consideration in light of the dictum in *Kajodia*.

The Tribunal also mandated that the applicant be given an opportunity of being heard, at least virtually, during this reconsideration.

The appeal is to be disposed of within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.

The Original Application was disposed of without costs.