AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was warned. A lenient view was taken. He was informed that recurrence of such act would be viewed seriously. Period of probation was extended as he was found to be irregular in attendance. 3. On 9.1.1991, he applied for leave on medical grounds. He failed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer of the petitioner despite having been asked in that behalf and as he failed to do so, his leave was not sanctioned. Despite the same, he sought another extension of leave upto 28.2.1991. He was asked to report immediately before the Chief Medical Officer. He was furthermore informed that failure to comply therewith would result in refusal of leave. He did not report to the Chief Medical Officer. 4. A charge sheet was issued to him for abse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s true that I was absent to duties in the dates mentioned by you, however, I could not attend to duties during the above period due to the ill health of my mother who was in the village of Mukkillapadu, Nuzivedu Mandalam, Krishna District. Sir, absenting from duties for these many days may be treated as a mistake on my part. I assure you through this letter that it will never be repeated again. I may be excused for this fault of mine and I may be given an opportunity." 7. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated, wherein again, he accepted his guilt whereupon the enquiry proceeding was closed stating: "When asked whether he accepts or denied (sic) the charges as contained in the charge sheet No.WK/TPP/107613/95/2255 dated 5.6.1995, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95 to July 96 as shown below. This was even after a commitment made by you that you will be regular in attending to duties and that an opportunity should be given to you to improve upon." 9. The said order is a detailed one. It was passed upon taking into consideration the entire service records, the period of absence of the respondent, the explanations offered by him, result of the enquiry proceedings as also the punishments imposed and the assurance and commitments made by him to improve himself. It was opined: "This habitual absence from duty is an act of misconduct as per the Certified Standing Orders of the Company, which has become a part of your nature. As the charges established against you i.e. "Habitual Absence" from duty an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating: "During the enquiry it was found that the petitioner was absent in the years 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995 and 1996. The very charge itself is that the petitioner is habitual absentee from duty and his absence is continuous one without prior sanction, which is in violation of the standing orders of the respondents. Though the petitioner has filed an explanation, however, the same was found to be not satisfactory. Even taking into consideration the reasons shown at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner's continuous absence can be justified more so in view of the specific standing orders and also the obligation cast on him. Having regard to the findings as arrived at by the authorities at all levels about the continuous abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his explanation dated 19.6.1995, which was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it has to be held that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice." 13. Mr. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that while exercising the power of judicial review, its role was limited. 14. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would support the judgment. 15. Indisputably, respondent was a habitual absente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. [See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others [(2005) 2 SCC 638]; State of Bihar & Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra [2006 (9) SCALE 549]; Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra [2006 (11) SCALE 258]; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi & Ors. [2006 (13) SCALE 319]; State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors. [2007 (12) SCALE 72] and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [CA No.576 of 2008 decided on 22.1.2008]. 17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily in....