back to work but sought leave from 15.04.1998 to 24.05.1998 but since there is no material to establish that he had availed any leave or applied for any leave or that leave was granted by the respondent No.1. His absence from duty from 15.04.1998 unauthorisedly was indeed an act of misconduct. The petitioner by not participating in the enquiry, admitted tacitly that he had committed an act of misconduct. However, while imposing punishment, the respondent No.1 must have been more sensible having regard to the nature of the misconduct. In the cases of this nature, a major penalty of dismissal from service was wholly unwarranted. A punishment of dismissal from service can be passed only in cases where an employee is accused of gross misconduct, such as malversion/misappropriation/misuse/acts of impropriety etc., which is not the case in the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No.1, ought to have considered imposing lesser penalty to deter the petitioner from indulging in similar such misconduct and to report back to work. Therefore, even assuming that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved by the default of the petitioner in not participating in the enquiry, yet imposition of the penalty
