In pondering that post I'm wondering if the point was that it could be relevant as absent a given "reason" (mental or physical disability) then it must by default then be considered willful and therefore malfeasance? Meaning that absent a mental or physical disability preventing them from performing their lawfully required duties that they then must be engaging in malfeasance in office (an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law). And if so, then either they claim justifiable reason (mental or physical) so that they can then be legally relieved of duties, or fail to make the claim and perhaps they should be charged with malfeasance.
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
§ 2.2-3122. Knowing violation of chapter constitutes malfeasance in office or employment.
Any person who knowingly violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of malfeasance in office or employment. Upon conviction thereof, the judge or jury trying the case, in addition to any other fine or penalty provided by law, may order the forfeiture of such office or employment.
(1987, Sp. Sess., c. 1, § 2.1-639.19; 2001, c. 844.)