THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.16630 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari calling for the records of impugned proceedings of respondents 3,2 and 1 dated, 01-09-2008,02-06-2009 and 21-11-2009 respectively and declare them as illegal, arbitrary and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into duties and also direct the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service for the period of his out of employment (from the date of disengagement to till date of reinstatement) and all incidental and consequential monitory and service benefits including seniority and regulation etc., 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Casual Driver. Sine he suffered from Pepstic ulcer with bleeding piles and he often experienced vomiting, he took leave from the controller several times and often reported sick. He also took treatment at Chennai. He was issued charge sheet by the 3rd respondent for his unauthorized absent from 14-02-2008 to 26-02-2008, for which he gave an explanation. Not satisfied with his explanation, an ex parte enquiry was conducted and Enquiry Officer submitted his report to 3rd respondent on 29-07-2008. Thereafter, he was issued show cause notice, for which he gave an explanation. Not satisfied with his explanation, 3rd respondent vide proceedings, dated 01-09-2008 disengaged him from service. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, but the same was rejected. Again he preferred a review before the 1st respondent and the same was also rejected. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petition and stated that the petitioner was absent unauthorisedly from 14-2-2008 till the date of issuance of charge sheet. During the enquiry, when the Enquiry Officer sent letters duly communicating three dates to attend the enquiry, he failed to attend the enquiry. Reasonable time was given by the Enquiry officer to defend his case, but the petitioner has not availed the same. Then the Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte enquiry and submitted report. A show cause notice was issued to him, for which he gave explanation. Further till the date of show-cause notice he was absented to his duties unauthorisedly. Therefore, the petitioner was disengaged from service. The appeal and review preferred by the petitioner were rejected. If the petitioner was really sick, he could have availed treatment in APSRTC Hospital where expert treatment facilities are available. The petitioner has failed to submit any evidence with regard to his sickness or treatment. Hence, the respondents pray to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that subsequent absenteeism cannot be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of imposing penalty and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and to direct the disciplinary authority to conduct fresh enquiry with regard to subsequent absenteeism and for that he relied on a circular issued by the respondents. He also contended that the petitioner was absent for duties beyond his control as he suffered ill-health. 5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Enquiry Officer has given a categorical finding that the petitioner was absent without there being any prior sanction of leave from 14-02-2008 to till date i.e., 22-04-2008 and passing observation was made by the disciplinary authority with regard to subsequent absenteeism, that the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate authority and Reviewing Authority after considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, passed the impugned orders and the same need no interference by this Court. 6. In disciplinary matters, the Disciplinary Authority or on appeal, the Appellate Authority or on review, the Reviewing Authority have exclusive power to consider the evidence and take appropriate decision with regard to punishment in relation to misconduct alleged against an employee. It is well settled that the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. It is not in dispute that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted by following due procedure by the Enquiry officer. In spite of giving notice to the petitioner, he refused to receive the notice in attending the enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has no option except to conduct ex-parte enquiry. After conducting enquiry, he submitted report to the disciplinary authority. 7. The charges levelled against the petitioner are: 1.For having absented to your duties from 14-02-2008 to till date without intimation to Depot Authorities. 2.For having caused dislocation of services which resulted inconvenience to the traveling pubic besides loss of revenues to the Corporation. No violation has been pointed out by the petitioner in not following the procedure contemplated in conducting an enquiry. Therefore, enquiry was conducted by observing principles of natural justice and also in accordance with regulations. Such is the case, scope of judicial review is only limited to the extent to see the punishment imposed. If the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct, then interference by this Court is called for. 8. For about more than two months, the petitioner was absent. Though he stated for the first time in the appeal grounds that he was suffering from ailments, but he has not produced any material to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the petitioner has not taken prior permission or sanction from the competent authority go to on leave. Nature of duties of the petitioner are such that it would cause much inconvenience to the general public as well as loss to the corporation in case he was absent without prior information. Therefore, considering the nature of duties, the petitioner is required to intimate to the concerned authorities with regard to his absence. If he is absent for duties in case of any emergency for one or two days, then it can be pardonable. But, without there being any such urgency, the petitioner was absent for about more than two months. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of this Court in W.P.No.11518 of 2009, dated 12-062009, whereunder the order of removal was set aside on the ground that no enquiry was conducted. That is a case where the petitioner therein was absent for 20 days and subsequent absenteeism was taken into consideration. The charge levelled against the petitioner herein was that he was unauthorisedly absent from 14-02-2008 to 22-02- 2008. Passing observation made in the impugned order stating that the petitioner was absent for about 175 days as per the record has no relevancy to the charge leveled against him. The disciplinary authority is agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with reference to charge which is the basis for passing the termination order, The passing observation, if any in relation to subsequent absenteeisum by the disciplinary authority cannot be taken as a finding in relation to punishment imposed. Therefore, the circular instructions issued by the Chairman and Managing Director and the observation of this Court have no application to the present facts of the case because the petitioner was absent for more than two months and a specific charge has been framed on that aspect and a specific finding is recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to that charge. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 07-06-2011 Hsd