K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of removal from service issued by the Chief Engineer, PSEB for proof of charges made against him namely willful absence without appropriate authority from 22.02.1988 to 18.03.1988. Actually, the absence was not merely upto 19.03.1988 though it as the subject of charge which was issued through charge -sheet issued on 25.03.1988. The employee continued to remain absence till after the year September, 1989 when he issued a notice offering to rejoin service. The PSEB did not allow him to rejoin and stated that there was no vacant post available but he was allowed to join on 12.10.1989. In the order passed terminating him from service, the officer has noted down the fact that the employee himself was admitted to the charge of his absence without authority from 22.02.1988 to 18.03.1988 and therefore, the charge had been taken as proved. However, in the order that was passed it has been referred to as though he was willfully absent from 22.03.1988 to 11.10.1989. In the narration of facts, I have elicited that the charge was only for absence upto 18.03.1988 but it was a matter of fact that he did not rejoin till after he made a request to rejoin and he was permitted to join duty without prejudice to the charges which had been levied against him.
(2.) THE only point is whether the punishment of removal accorded with the charge -sheet which had been levied against him. It is clear from his service book that the petitioner had been absent for various periods from 08.06.1987 to 04.12.1987 during which period he had obtained sanction but he had again absented himself from 05.12.1987 to 11.01.1988 and again when he was absent for which chargesheet had been levied against him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that he has served for fairly a long period of time nearly 20 years and the termination from service for absence during the period from 22.02.1988 till he offered to retain service in September, 1989 is excessive. If the charge was proved, the only issue is whether it constituted serious enough misconduct to merit an action for dismissal from service. Admittedly, he had been absent even beyond the period for when chargesheet had been levied and he offered himself to rejoin only in September, 1989. If the charge was proved and a power to punish also is available under the relevant rule that would include a power to remove from service after enquiry and the procedure had been properly followed, the intervention which a Court could make in such a situation would be to see whether the punishment was so oppressive that the Court's conscience is shaken. I will not find any extenuating circumstance to be applied in favour of the petitioner to make an intervention as regards the punishment.
(3.) THE writ petition is dismissed. At the time of submitting voluntary retirement, the petitioner has paid three months salary on 30.10.1989. The amount collected by the PSEB is ordered to be returned with interest @9% per annum from the date when the amount was paid till the date of payment or at the option of the petitioner if there is any amount which is due and payable by him, the same could be adjusted and balance if any shall be paid by one or the other to the person from whom the amount is still due.;