SRI ANAND SHIVAPPA GUNJALADA, S/O SHIVAPPA Vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS & APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order of removal dated 14.03.2015 (Annexure 'S') and the order dated 04.07.2015 (Anneuxre 'V'). In that regard the petitioner is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Depot Manager. The petitioner contends that at an earlier point while he was working and when he was on duty on 27.05.2009 he was stabbed by a dismissed employee due to which he was an inpatient and was discharged from the Hospital on 15.06.2009. Since such injury was suffered to his abdomen he was thereafter having difficulties in that regard. Insofar as the other aspects relating to the service, the petitioner has averred in his petition that the action against this petitioner is for the unauthorized absence and in that regard a show cause notice dated 05.10.2012 was issued to him. The petitioner having replied to the same and the same being not satisfactory, an enquiry was held in that regard. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his Report holding that the charge alleged against the petitioner was established. Based on the same, the Disciplinary Authority through the order dated 14.03.2015 has passed the order of removal. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the same has been dismissed by the order dated 04.07.2015. It is in that light the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objection statement to this petition. The absence of the petitioner for a long period of 470 days is referred and in that light it is contended that when the petitioner was holding a responsible position in the respondent - Corporation, such unauthorized absence would lead to a serious misconduct and also would hamper the regular work of the respondent-Corporation. In that regard it is contended that the charge as alleged against the petitioner was established in the enquiry and in that light the Disciplinary Authority having taken note of the same has arrived at the conclusion. It is their contention that when there is such indiscipline, the punishment as imposed is justified and the same does not call for interference.