https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171723 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. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171723 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171723