4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that order of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent for 22 days as per the charge and it was a case of unauthorized absence. Learned counsel argues that for unauthorized absence of 22 days, dismissal from service was not warranted as the same was under the compelling circumstances which was perhaps not considered by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order. Referring to the several medical prescriptions annexed with the writ petition, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner was suffering from various ailments, which is not in dispute, as a result of which he was compelled to stay at home. After recovery, when he came to join his duty, he learnt that the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter, order of dismissal was passed following the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer without considering the genuine cause of absence of the petitioner from duty on the ground of various ailments, has submitted the report to the effect that the absence was willful, which is perverse and arbitrary and the order of dismissal based on the said enquiry report also vitiates. Learned counsel further argues that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as he is just 45 years old and 15 years of service is still left and he is able to discharge the duties assigned to him by the Home Department.
