Government clerk disciplined for unauthorized absence despite illness claim; Supreme Court stresses order compliance.

The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary action against a government servant, an Upper Division Clerk in the Intelligence Bureau, for unauthorised absence from duty. Despite claiming illness, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence and was found guilty of misconduct. The Court emphasized the importance of following transfer orders and addressing personal issues through proper channels. The appellant's plea for leniency based on accumulated leave was rejected, leading to the affirmation of compulsory retirement as a major punishment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Unauthorised absence of a government servant and disciplinary action.
2. Transfer of the appellant and subsequent absence from duty.
3. Enquiry findings, disciplinary action, and appeal process.
4. Tribunal and High Court decisions on the disciplinary action.
5. Appellant's argument regarding reporting for duty and leave applications.
6. Appellant's plea for leniency based on accumulated leave.

Issue 1: Unauthorised absence of a government servant and disciplinary action:
The case involves a government servant, an Upper Division Clerk in the Intelligence Bureau, who was found unauthorisedly absent from duty. Despite claiming illness, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his absence. An enquiry found the appellant guilty of misconduct for unauthorised absence and imposed compulsory retirement as a major punishment. The disciplinary authority's decision was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the disciplinary action.

Issue 2: Transfer of the appellant and subsequent absence from duty:
Following a transfer order, the appellant failed to report for duty at the new location, citing illness as the reason. The appellant remained absent for an extended period, submitting medical certificates from unauthorized doctors. The disciplinary authority considered the prolonged absence without valid excuse as a misconduct under disciplinary rules, leading to the major punishment of compulsory retirement.

Issue 3: Enquiry findings, disciplinary action, and appeal process:
An enquiry officer found the charge of unauthorised absence partially substantiated but noted discrepancies in the appellant's claims of illness. The disciplinary authority upheld the major punishment of compulsory retirement based on the prolonged unauthorised absence. The appellant's appeal through the Tribunal and subsequent writ petition at the High Court were both dismissed, affirming the disciplinary action taken.

Issue 4: Tribunal and High Court decisions on the disciplinary action:
The Tribunal and High Court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, emphasizing the appellant's duty to report for work at the new location and address personal issues through proper channels. The courts dismissed the appellant's claims of illness preventing duty attendance, citing medical certificates indicating fitness for duty.

Issue 5: Appellant's argument regarding reporting for duty and leave applications:
The appellant argued that reporting for duty on certain dates and applying for leave on others should not constitute continuous unauthorised absence. However, the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority found the appellant guilty of unauthorised absence for most of the period, except for a few days.

Issue 6: Appellant's plea for leniency based on accumulated leave:
The appellant pleaded for leniency based on accumulated leave credits, requesting permission to resume duty by utilizing the available leave. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing the importance of maintaining discipline in public service and not condoning unauthorised absence based on accumulated leave entitlements.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the disciplinary action against the appellant for unauthorised absence from duty. The court emphasized the importance of government servants following transfer orders and addressing personal issues through proper channels rather than resorting to litigation. The appellant's claims of illness were not substantiated, leading to the affirmation of the major punishment of compulsory retirement.

---