ABDUL KADIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.862 of 2007 titled Abdul Kadir v. Union of India through General Manager and others dismissing his petition filed against the order of his removal from service passed by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Moradabad on 25th January, 2006 which was confirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional authority on account of petitioner's unauthorized absence from 2nd September, 2005. The petitioner was serving as Technician Welder II and a charegsheet dated 27th October, 2005 was issued to him on account of his unauthorized absence from 2nd September, 2005 contending inter alia that he was habituated to abstaining from duty unauthorisedly and consequently he was upsetting the maintenance of railway services. It was alleged that despite opportunities given to him to improve his performance, no improvement was noted.

(2.) On inquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. A show cause notice was issued by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Moradabad and after considering his oral pleas and contentions, order of removal dated 25th January, 2006 was passed. An Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 22nd August, 2006 noticing that petitioner had been punished twice earlier for unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 225 days in 2003; 184 days in 2004 and 130 days in 2005 which was not denied by the petitioner. The revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, Northern Railway, New Delhi, which was also dismissed.

(3.) The Tribunal has considered the pleas and contentions of the petitioner and noted that the petitioner was absent from 21st September, 2005 up to 17th December, 2005. Though there was a discrepancy as to whether he reported on 16th December, 2005 or 17th December, 2005, it was held that it could not be denied that the petitioner had abstained from work for 86 days unauthorizedly even if it is accepted that he reported on 16th December, 2005. The Tribunal has also considered two PMCs dated 21st September, 2005 and 15th December, 2005 produced by the petitioner which only shows that he was suffering from backache with Neurity and weakness. The petitioner, however, did not inform orally or by any letter to the respondents about his indisposition during the said period prior to 16th December, 2005.