Disciplinary punishment for habitual absence upheld where admissions made proof unnecessary and judicial review remained limited.

Habitual unauthorised absence was proved where the employee admitted the charge in reply to the charge-sheet, and such admission dispensed with further proof under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A later explanation raised only in subsequent proceedings could not establish a denial of natural justice when it had not formed part of the departmental defence. In disciplinary matters, judicial review under Article 226 is limited, and where procedure is followed and misconduct is established, the court should not ordinarily interfere with the punishment. The removal from service was upheld and the High Court's interference was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the employee's removal from service for habitual unauthorized absence was legally sustainable and whether the High Court could interfere with the disciplinary order in exercise of judicial review.

Analysis: The employee had repeatedly remained absent without sanctioned leave and, in reply to the charge-sheet, admitted the charges. An admission, once made, dispenses with proof under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A later explanation offered in subsequent proceedings, which had not formed part of the departmental defence, could not by itself establish violation of natural justice. In matters of discipline, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. Where procedural requirements are complied with and misconduct is proved, the Court does not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment or substitute sympathy for lawful disciplinary control.

Conclusion: The removal from service was upheld and the High Court's interference was found unsustainable.

---