(Prayer in WP.No.48203 of 2025: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the enquiry report made in Roc. No.71774- A/ 2019-Estt.II dated 06.02.2023 submitted by the 2nd respondent and the consequential impugned order made in Roc. No. 71774-A/ 2019-Estt.II dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and the order made in Roc. No.71774-A/2019- Estt.II dated 22.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority, communicated through the 1st respondent quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.

In WP No. 48209 of 2025: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order made in Roc. NO.3354-A/ 2021- Estt. II dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and the order made in Roc. No.3354-A/ 2021-estt.II dated 22.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority, communicated through the 1st respondent quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.

In WP No. 48213 of 2025: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Impugned order made in Roc. No. 62041-A/ 2023- Estt.II dated 04.04.2025 passed by the 1st respondent and the order made in Roc. No. 62041-A/ 2023-Estt. II dated 22.09.2025 passed by the appellate authority, communicated through the 1st respondent quash the same and consequently reinstate the petitioner in service with all attended benefits.)

Common Order:

Krishnaswamy Govindarajan, J.

1. Three writ petitions were filed challenging the common order of dismissal dated 04.04.2025 passed in ROC No.71774-A/2019-Estt.II, ROC No.3354-A/2021-Estt.II, and ROC No.62041-A/2023-Estt.II. Since the issue involved in all these matters are one and the same, a common order of punishment of dismissal from service was imposed, all three writ petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

2. The charges framed against the petitioner are common in nature "unauthorised absence".

3. In ROC No.71774-A/2019-Estt.II, the authorities framed the following charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules:

                   Charge No.1:That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have applied UEL (MC) for 8 days from 20.08.2019 to 27.08.2019 and you have absented yourself unauthorisedly from duty from 28.08.2019 onwards. Your aforesaid act of unauthorised absence has caused much inconvenience to this Registry.

                   Your act of unauthorised absence, affects the dayto- day works of this Registry, which shows your nondevotion to duty and dereliction of duty.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

                   Charge No.2:That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have submitted your leave application, for (i) Medical Leave from 20.08.2019 to 27.08.2019 and (ii) UEL (MC) from 28.08.2019 to 22.09.2019, belatedly on 26.08.2019 and 03.09.2019, respectively.

                   Your aforesaid act also show your scant regards for Rules, non-devotion to duty and dereliction of duty, which has caused much inconvenience to this Registry.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

                   Charge No.3:That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have submitted your leave application, for extension of leave on medical grounds i.e., UEL (MC) from 23.09.2019 to 03.10.2019, well in advance i.e., on 20.09.2019 and also enclosed medical certificate to that effect, prior to the leave period.

                   It is against the Rules that you have applied for the Medical Leave in advance, which shows your act of least inclination to work in this Registry.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

4. In ROC No.3354-A/2021-Estt.II, the authorities framed the following charges:

                   ‘’1) That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have absented from duty unauthorisedly from 02.07.2021 onwards. Your aforesaid act of unauthorised absence has caused much inconvenience to this Registry. Your act of unauthorised absence, affects the day-to-day works of this Registry, which shows your non-devotion to duty and dereliction of duty.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

                   2) That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, were directed to submit your explanation in the High Court's Official Memorandum in Roc.No.3354-A/2021-Estt.II, dated 22.07.2021, for your act of unauthorised absence and the said Official Memorandum which was sent twice to your residential address at "No.104/73, Gowdia Mutt Lane, Royapettah, Chennai-14" through Special Messenger and R.P.A.D., were returned "un-served" with the endorsements as "Door Locked".

                   Due to your non-availability in your residential address, the Official Memorandum could not be served to you, but, till date, you have not stated the reasons for your unauthorised absence, to the Registry, in writing, which also shows your misconduct and dereliction of duty, and the same has also caused much inconvenience to this Registry.

                   Thus, you have conducted yourself in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973. Thus you have rendered liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.’’

5. In ROC No.62041-A/2023-Estt.II, the authorities framed the following charges:

                   ‘’Charge No.1:

                   That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have applied for EOL (Loss of pay) from 06.05.2023 to 06.06.2023 and you have absented yourself unauthorisedly for duty from 07.06.2023 onwards. Your aforesaid act of unauthorised absence has caused much inconvenience to the Registry.

                   Your act of unauthorised absence shows your nondevotion to duty and dereliction of duty.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

                   Charge No.2:

                   That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, have submitted your leave application, for EOL (Loss of pay) from 06.05.2023 to 06.06.2023 belatedly only on 05.06.2023.

                   Your act of belated submission of leave application shows your non-devotion to duty and dereliction of duty.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

                   Charge No.3:

                   That you, Thiru. V.Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, were directed to submit your explanation for your act of unauthorised absence for duty from 07.06.2023 onwards vide High Court's Official Memorandum in Roc.No.62041-A/2023-Estt.II dated 03.07.2023, which was served to your residential address viz., 104/73, Gowdia Mutt Lane, Royapattah, Chennai - 600 014 through R.P.A.D. on 07.07.2023. Even after the receipt of the said Official Memorandum you have not submitted your explanation till date.

                   Your aforesaid act show your scant regards for Rules, non-devotion to duty and dereliction of duty, which has caused much inconvenience to this Registry.

                   Thus you have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant and thereby violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and hence you have rendered yourself liable for departmental action, under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.’’

6. Insofar as the first proceeding in ROC No.71774-A/2019-Estt.II is concerned, after receiving an explanation from the delinquent, the first respondent appointed the Administrative Officer in the cadre of Assistant Registrar, High Court Guest House, as the Enquiry Officer and the Sub Assistant Registrar (Digitisation-II) as the Presenting Officer. In respect of the second proceeding, ROC No.3354-A/2021-Estt.II, is concerned, the first respondent appointed the Deputy Registrar (Admn-II) as Enquiry Officer and the Assistant Registrar (Admin-II) as Presenting Officer. In respect of ROC No.62041-A/2023-Estt.II, is concerned, the first respondent appointed the Assistant Registrar (CS-VI) as Enquiry Officer and the Sub Assistant Registrar (Digitization-VIII) as the Presenting Officer.

7. The facts of the case are as follows:

                   (i) The petitioner, V. Sarath Chander, Assistant, High Court, Madras, while working in D-Section, applied for Unearned Leave on Medical Certificate for eight days from 20.08.2019 to 27.08.2019. The said leave application was received by the Registry only on 26.08.2019. The Section Officer, D-Section made an endorsement: "No prior intimation given." In spite of the expiry of the leave period, the petitioner neither reported for duty nor submitted any leave application. Hence, the Section Officer, vide letter dated 29.08.2019, reported that the delinquent had not reported for duty from 28.08.2019. The delinquent was accordingly directed to submit an explanation through an OM dated 30.08.2019. The delinquent sent a representation on 03.09.2019 along with a leave application and Medical Certificate for an extension from 28.08.2019 to 22.09.2019, stating that due to viral fever he was unable to move and was admitted to the hospital on 27.08.2019, with the doctor advising bed rest up to 22.09.2019; he claimed his absence was neither willful nor wanton but solely due to health issues. He further extended UEL(MC) from 23.09.2019 to 03.10.2019 vide a leave application dated 20.09.2019. After expiry, he reported for duty on 04.10.2019 FN and was allowed to join duty on 04.10.2019 FN without prejudice to action in ROC No.71774-A/2019-Estt.II dated 30.08.2019. Not satisfied with the explanation, charges were framed. During the enquiry, two witnesses were examined and documents were marked. A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 21.11.2022, on which date the delinquent requested permission to engage counsel and received copies of documents. On 07.12.2022, the delinquent appeared through an Advocate, and the enquiry was conducted in the presence of the Advocate with sufficient opportunity provided. The Enquiry Officer concluded that Charge Nos. 1 & 2 were proved and Charge No. 3 was not proved.

                   (ii). In respect of ROC No.3354-A/2021-Estt.II, an explanation was called for from the delinquent for unauthorised absence from 02.07.2021. The said OM was returned with the endorsement "Door Locked," and charges under Rule 17(b) were consequently framed. The charge memo was received by the delinquent's wife, C.D. Vidhya. Subsequently, it was ordered that the same proceeding be served upon the delinquent as per the rules. On the basis of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer concluded that both charges stood proved vide a report dated 05.06.2023. In the meantime, the delinquent submitted a leave application dated 01.12.2022 seeking extraordinary leave from 01.07.2021 to 04.12.2022 and reported to join duty on 08.12.2022 with a leave application from 05.12.2022 to 07.12.2022. He was permitted to join duty on the same day.

                   (iii). In respect of ROC No.62041-A/2023-Estt.II, the delinquent submitted an EOL application dated 05.06.2023 for the period from 06.05.2023 to 06.06.2023. The Section Officer, D Section, through a letter dated 15.06.2023, reported that the delinquent had not reported for duty from 07.06.2023 onwards. Hence, an explanation was called for through an OM dated 03.07.2023. The said OM was served at his residential address, but he did not submit an explanation. Charges were then framed under Rule 17(b), and he was directed to submit a written statement of defence along with a duly filled questionnaire within 21 days. The charge proceedings were returned with the endorsement "Door Locked."

                   (iv). Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer and a Presiding Officer were appointed. Summons could not be served directly as there was no proper response and no correct address was furnished. Summons were received by the delinquent's father-in-law twice and once by the delinquent's spouse. The delinquent did not appear for the departmental enquiry nor did he send any communication. Having no other option, the Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte and submitted a report on 09.05.2024 holding all charges proved. Thereafter, the report was furnished to the delinquent through an OM dated 18.06.2024 by RPAD, asking him to furnish a further explanation within 15 days. The OM was delivered to his official address, but he failed to submit any further explanation. Therefore, after conducting a due enquiry, the first respondent, vide order dated 04.04.2025, dismissed the petitioner from service under Rule 8(viii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules w.e.f. 04.04.2025. Challenging the same, these writ petitions were filed.

8. The first respondent filed detailed counter-affidavits in all three writ petitions. In the counter, the respondent explained that in total, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for 1,235 days, apart from availing 1,377 days of EL, EL (MC), UEL (MC), UEL (PA), EOL, and EOL (MC). In paragraph 5 of the counter, the respondent detailed the facts regarding punishments imposed during his service period. For better appreciation, paragraph 5 is extracted below:

                   "5. I submit that in the same paragraph 2 the petitioner has stated that he has never faced any enquiry or suffered any punishment. As mentioned above the said individual was imposed with (a) a punishment of "Censure" under Rule 8(i) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, for his unauthorised absence from 24.10.2017 onwards, availing EOL from 24.10.2017 to 12.12.2017, in High Court's Proceedings in Roc.No.85203-A/2017-Estt.II, dated 01.10.2019 and (b) a punishment of "withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effects" under Rule 8(iii) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, for his unauthorised absence from duty on 09.01.2018 onwards, availing EOL (MC) from 09.01.2018 to 28.02.2018, in High Court's Proceedings in Roc.No.2681-A/2018-Estt.II, dated 01.10.2019."

9. Further, counsel stated that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting himself without informing officials and was twice punished for the same misconduct. During his entire service of over 23 years, the petitioner was either on leave or in unauthorised absence for more than 10 years. He availed all kinds of leave for over 5 years and was in unauthorised absence for over 5 years. This conduct demonstrates a severe lack of devotion to duty.

10. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Perused the materials available on record.

11. The counsel for the petitioner is trying to impress upon this Court that the absence from duty by the petitioner was solely on health grounds. Having now fully recovered from his health issues, he submits that there was no willful absence, the delinquent is ready to continue to work. The counsel further submits that the absence from service may be condoned and that the imposition of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to the charges. Hence, the respondent may consider some other punishment instead of dismissal.

12. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting himself without informing officials, having twice been punished for the same misconduct. During his total service of more than 23 years, he was either on leave or in unauthorised absence for over 10 years. The petitioner has displayed a lack of devotion to duty, making it difficult to continue his service, and the punishment is fully proportionate.

13. The core issue is unauthorized absence. It is settled law that unauthorized absence is a grave misconduct in any institution. The petitioner was appointed on 05.07.2005. Out of 23+ years of service, as per the counteraffidavit, he availed 1,377 days of leave (EL, EL-MC, UEL-MC, EOL) and was unauthorizedly absent for 1,235 days. Total non-working days account for more than 10 years. This Bench has already held in 2026 (2) WLR 316 in the case of State Bank of India and other Vs. V.Indira Nawada (deceased) and others that habitual unauthorized absence shows a lack of devotion to duty, and no leniency can be shown. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

                   ‘’14. In the present case, the bank extended a long rope to the employee by issuing multiple communications requesting her to join duty. Despite this, she failed to offer a single valid request or explanation for her unauthorised absence and took leave without permission. The Bank ultimately took the only remaining resort and issued the acceptance of resignation effective from the period she remained absented.

                   15. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Om Prakash reported in (2024 INSC 870), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as under:

                   “11. Relief was granted to the respondent by the High Court on the ground that the termination order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity or conducting an inquiry into the charge of absence from duty. But in granting such relief, the Court overlooked that it was a case of the respondent abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts. Subsequently, it came to light that he joined the FCI on 09.05.1997.

                   12. Such conduct of the respondent could not have been condoned by the employer and therefore, in our assessment, treating the respondent to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted. It is also necessary for us to say that as the delinquent was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the FCI, he was disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

                   16. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the unauthorised absence of an employee without informing their whereabouts can be treated as abandonment of service, empowering the employer to take appropriate disciplinary action. Seeking or granting the acceptance of resignation under such circumstances constitutes a contrary relief.’’

14. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the absence was due to health issues and that dismissal is disproportionate. This Court is not inclined to accept this argument. The medical certificates were submitted by the petitioner belatedly on 26.08.2019 and 03.09.2019 for leave starting 20.08.2019, and even in advance on 20.09.2019 for 23.09.2019 to 03.09.2019, which is against the Rules. Moreover, in ROCs’ 3354 and 62041, no medical proof was provided at all.

15. Further, the petitioner worked in D-Section, a sensitive section of the High Court. His absence from 28.08.2019, 02.07.2021, and 07.06.2023 caused much inconvenience to the Registry. The respondent extended a long rope to the petitioner and imposed minor penalties on the earlier occasions. However, despite the imposition of minor penalties, the petitioner never mended his ways. The petitioner has failed to attend duty for more than 10 years out of his 23+ years of service. He remained in unauthorized absence for over 5 years and availed leave for over 5 years. The respondent utilized its last resort to impose the punishment of dismissal from service.

16. In our view, the punishment imposed by the respondent is neither disproportionate nor excessive, considering the facts of the case. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity during the first charge memo (where he appeared with an Advocate); in the second and third charge memos, summons were sent but returned marked "Door Locked" or were received by family members, leading to an ex parte enquiry conducted following due procedure. The principles of natural justice have been fully complied with. We find that no indulgence can be extended by this Court, and the order passed by the respondent is completely justifiable, requiring no interference.

17. In view of the above discussions, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.