Unauthorized Absence Following Suspension Revocation Justifies Removal and Precludes Interference Under Judicial Review

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Harawadi, was suspended on January 6, 2012, due to alleged irregularities in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme

Following a High Court direction in a previous writ petition, his suspension was revoked on April 10, 2012

Despite the revocation and service of the posting order on April 11, 2012, the petitioner failed to resume duties and remained unauthorizedly absent for approximately nine months

A departmental enquiry was initiated, and the Enquiry Officer found the charges of unauthorized absence proved

Consequently, the Collector, Betul, representing the Disciplinary Authority, imposed the penalty of termination from service on October 6, 2016

The petitioner's statutory appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on July 14, 2017

The petitioner challenged these orders via the present writ petition, claiming he was on medical leave and that the punishment was disproportionate

1. Whether the findings of the departmental enquiry and the subsequent order of termination were contrary to statutory rules or principles of natural justice

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can re-appreciate evidence to interfere with the quantum of punishment or findings of fact in a departmental enquiry

The principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as elucidated in Govt. of A.P. and Others v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373, which establishes that the High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority and its jurisdiction is confined to correcting errors of law or procedural impropriety resulting in a miscarriage of justice

Rule 10(8) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 regarding the imposition of penalties

Rule 13 regarding statutory appeals

The Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory rules or principles of natural justice during the enquiry

Upon perusing the record, the Court found that the petitioner was served the revocation and posting order on April 11, 2012, yet remained absent until January 2013 without providing any prior information or application to the authorities

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on medical certificates from the years 2001 and 2002 to justify an absence occurring in 2012, labeling such evidence "completely misplaced"

Adhering to the Mohd. Nasrullah Khan precedent, the Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence, noting that the charge of grave misconduct (long unauthorized absence) was fully proved through witness statements and documentation during the departmental inquiry

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the scope of judicial review is narrow and the punishment of removal was justified given the nature of the misconduct

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit