(Judgment of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, ACJ.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time.
2. It appears that with regard to unauthorized absence of the respondent herein, action is said to have been initiated by the appellant including departmental enquiry and an order has been passed for removal of service. Consequently, the writ petition was filed. In the writ petition filed, after hearing the parties, the following order was passed : "On considering the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned orders of the respondents and this Court's view listed above as (i) to (vii), this court holds that the writ petition has enough force to allow it. Therefore, this court directs the respondent-Board to reinstate the petitioner, with continuity of service and attendant benefits, without back wages, forthwith i.e., within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order."
3. In our view, the punishment imposed by the appellant is exorbitant since the absence of the respondent was not deliberate but due to I'll health. Though it is submitted that unauthorized absence is only for ten days, but the fact remains that it was for 65 days. Hence, we are of the view that it can be modified to that of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall reinstate the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(,ACJ.)(T.K.R.,J.) 23.3.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
ACJ.
AND RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
ssk.
W.A.No.139 of 2014 23.3.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in