Service Law – Misconduct – Absence from duty/Unauthorized absence/Absenteeism – Willful absence – Proof – Necessity – Appellant unauthorisedly absent from duty during three consecutive periods (36 days, 32 days and 234 days) – Consequent allegations of failure to maintain devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of government servant and dismissal based thereupon – Sustainability – Held, for sustaining such allegations it must be proved that unauthorized absence was willful – If absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct – In instant case, neither inquiry officer nor appellate authority found absence of appellant willful despite his specific defense that he was prevented from attending duty and was not allowed to sign attendance register – Evidence produced by appellant to substantiate his claim was ignored by authorities concerned and on basis of irrelevant facts and surmises he was held guilty – Impugned order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority, and affirmed by appellate authority, CAT and High Court, set aside – Considering that appellant had suffered a lot since 1996 when proceedings were initiated against him, matter not remitted to disciplinary authority – Appellant directed to be reinstated and paid 50% back wages – Departmental Enquiry – Judicial review/Validity – Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rr.3(1)(ii) & (iii)
