THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 1689 of 2009 Dated: 18-4-2011 Between A.Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner And The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Registrar (Management), Hyderabad and another …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioner in 1994 joined as an Attender in the judicial service in the Prakasam District judicial unit. The Presiding Officer in his letter dated 24-4-2007 intimated the Principal District Judge, the disciplinary authority regarding the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 13-4-2007 till the date of the report. He further stated in the letter that he called for the explanation of the petitioner, which was served on the petitioner on 18-4-2007, but no explanation was submitted. On 23-5-2007 the explanation of the petitioner was again solicited and later he was transferred and posted as an Attender in the District Court, Ongole by an order of even date. After joining the transferred post at Ongole, the petitioner remained absent from 8-7- 2007 onwards. For this unauthorized absence, his explanation was called for by the letter dated 28-11-2007. The petitioner submitted his explanation on1-12-2007 asserting that he was absent on account of ill-health. By proceedings dated 26-2-2008 two charges were framed against the petitioner; (a) that while working as Process Server in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala he remained absent from duty from 13-4-2007 till the date of report of the Presiding Officer (dated 24- 4-2007) and that he failed to submit his explanation despite a show- cause notice; a conduct amounting to gross negligence, insubordination and dereliction of duties; and (b) that after joining duty on 7-7-2007 on transfer to the District Court, Ongole, from 8-7-2007 onwards he absconded from duty; that on 22-10-2007 he submitted an explanation seeking permission to join duty promising to be careful in future; that on being permitted to join duty on 22-12-2007, from 23-12- 2007 however, the very next date he absconded from duty and did not turn up, a conduct amounting to gross negligence, insubordination and dereliction of duties. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges on 15-3- 2008 asserting therein that his mother was not doing well and there was no person available to attend on her. Eventually, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted inquiry on the charges adverted to above and in his report found the petitioner guilty of the two charges. On receipt of the inquiry report, by proceedings dated 12-6-2008, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to respond why he be not dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted an undated representation in response to the aforementioned show-cause notice admitting all the charges but asserting that he has not unauthorizedly absented himself intentionally and promised not to repeat the conduct. On a consideration of all the material on record in the inquiry; consideration of the inquiry report and due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority, by the order dated 11-8-2008, awarded the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court on the administrative side. In the grounds of appeal the petitioner claimed mental disorder for the last three years occasioned by family disputes and the mental harassment by his ailing mother as the reason for his “psychological disorder”. This ground was not taken during the course of inquiry. By the order dated 19-11-2008 the 1st respondent found no reason to interfere with the conclusion of guilt arrived at by the 2nd respondent-disciplinary authority and no other reasons either, to interfere with the quantum of penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. His creative plea in the appeal that the reason for his long spells of absence was on account of mental disorder occasioned by family disputes, was rightly negatived by this Court on the ground that the petitioner is taking different stands from stage to stage and there is no material in support for his claim of mental disorder. The appeal was dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the self-same grounds as found disfavour before the primary and appellate authorities. The learned counsel urges that a compassionate view be taken on account of the fact that the petitioner is a low paid Class-IV employee and that while his conduct of unauthorized absence was inexcusable, a lenient view be taken and the punishment of removal imposed by the primary authority and confirmed by the disciplinary authority be converted to one of appointment afresh. None of the contentions urged by the learned counsel commend acceptance by this Court. The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for extended periods. While the primary authority records the period of unauthorized absence as for a continuous period of 231 days, according to the petitioner he was unauthorizedly absent “only” for a period of 175 days, qua the two charges framed against him. Be that as it may. The period of 175 days of unauthorized absence cannot be termed as a trivial period. The petitioner is a public servant and therefore discharges public service. All the hierarchies of service exist to serve the public and the salary of a public servant is from the public exchequer, namely the tax-payer. If a conduct grossly inimical to efficient public service is established and a grave misconduct of unauthorized absence for a period of 175 days (even as admitted by the petitioner), the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. This Court does not exercise eleemosynary jurisdiction. The penalty imposed by the employer could be interfered with only if it is found grossly or shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct charged and proved. In the case on hand, the petitioner was certainly guilty, as rightly found by the primary and appellate authority of unauthorized absence for long periods. He gave no advance intimation as to his absence nor produced any medical record to support his claim of mental disorder, a claim asserted for the first time in the appellate Forum. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 18th April, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR