SERVICE LAW:

Misconduct - Unauthorised long absence from duty - Dismissal from service -- Reinstatement directed by High Court without back wages - Held: Employee remained unauthorisedly absent for a long time - Medical certificate was filed belatedly - Charges were found proved - Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court did not advert to these issues - High Court has erred in giving emphasis on first time desertion and directing reinstatement - Plea of absence of “habitual absentecism" is unacceptable - Besides, respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty - This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers indiscipline in an organization -Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline And Appeal) Regulations, 1978 -- Regulations 6(1) and 6(2).

Proportionality of punishment - Long absence from duty - Dismissal - Held: Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that punishment imposed by disciplinary authority or appellate authority shocks the conscience of court - Unauthorized absence by an employee, as misconduct, cannot be put into a straight-jacket formula for imposition of punishment - Respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason and in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent, had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it - Such a conduct is not permissible - Doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case - The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate.

DELAY/LACHES:

Misconduct - Dismissal from service - Four years delay in filing writ petition -Held: Doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside - A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same - it should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction - It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification - That apart, in the instant case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent - Such delay does not deserve any indulgence - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226.