NATHU RAM Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-Nathu Ram, submits that the petitioner was not well and was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by the DTC Medical Board vide prescription slip dated 20th March, 2008. It is submitted that the departmental authorities and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (the tribunal, for short) have ignored the medical prescriptions and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal dated 15th April, 2011 dismissing O.A. No. 3483/2010 and the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority deserve to be set aside.

(2.) WE have examined the said contention as well as the prescription slips, which have been placed on record. The petitioner was a driver with the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation. He had remained absent from 2nd January, 2008 to 30th June, 2009 without prior intimation and permission. The total period of absence is 509 days. He had initially submitted a leave application with medical certificate for eight days and thereafter another leave application for twelve days without any medical certificate. The second application was rejected by the competent authority. Thereafter, he did not submit any leave application. As per the medical prescription place on record, the petitioner was examined in the medical unit of the Delhi Transport Corporation on 20th March, 2008 and was referred to another hospital in respect of injuries suffered by him. The aforesaid prescription does not refer to any psychiatric ailment and does not explain the period of absence from January till March, 2008. There are three more medical prescriptions in respect of injury and treatment in the Department of Orthopaedics dated 19th April, 2008, 26th April, 2008 and 20th June, 2008. The subsequent prescriptions do not show any psychiatric ailment. It is not understood why and for what reason the petitioner did not apply for leave and submit these prescriptions. For the psychiatric ailment or vertigo or sleeping problem relied upon by the petitioner, the medical prescriptions begin from March, 2009 onwards. There is time gap in the said medical prescriptions and after March, 2009, the next prescription available is of June, 2009 and then of January, 2010. The tribunal as well as the departmental authorities have also recorded that out of 23 entries in the Annual Confidential Reports, there were 22 adverse entries on account of habitual absence. The petitioner had suffered penalties on 17 occasions , out of which 12 penalties related to absenteeism.