IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16398 of 2007 NAWAZISH KHAN Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.M.Nematullah, Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocates For the respondents : Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 25th July, 2008 To some extent, justice can be tampered with mercy, but all mercy is no justice. Justice can be supplemented by mercy, but mercy cannot supplant justice. Here is a case where the petitioner remained absent for the period from 12th of February, 1975 to 02nd of February, 1980 and for this unauthorised absence he has been removed from service after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. 2. This is second round of litigation. In the first round, the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to review the harshness of punishment vis-à-vis the wrong committed by the delinquent. 3. Consequent upon the order of the Tribunal passed on 07th of May, 1999, the disciplinary authority reconsidered the matter relating to punishment for unauthorised long absence and held that - 2 - removal from service was a just order of punishment. While holding so, the disciplinary authority took into consideration the earlier punishment awarded to the petitioner and the fact that the delinquent even absented unauthorisedly during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 4. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case, punishment of removal cannot be said to be uncalled for. The Tribunal considered the legal position and held that unauthorised long absence is a grave misconduct and may invite a harsh punishment, including dismissal of service. We have no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the Tribunal. 5. Writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil