S K GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who worked as a data entry operator with Respondent No. 1, National Insurance Company Ltd., challenges an order dated 13 th April, 2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA?) imposing a penalty of "censure" on the Petitioner and cautioning him to be careful in future in matters of leave. The Petitioner also challenges an order dated 16 th July 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority (AA?) rejecting the Petitioner's appeal and the further order dated 24 th June 2005 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of Respondent No. 1 upholding the decision of the DA and the AA.

(2.) The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent No. 1 on 10 th January 1984 as a data entry operator. He was transferred from the Divisional Office-1 (DO-1?) to Divisional Office-2 on 14 th November 1994 by the Regional Officer. The Petitioner states that Respondent No. 4, instead of relieving him issued a letter on the same day seeking an explanation for non-submission by the Petitioner of leave applications for the year 1992 and thereafter placed the Petitioner under suspension by a letter dated 29 th November 1994. Subsequently, the suspension order was revoked on 5 th May 1995. However, nearly two years later, on 3 rd April 1997, the Petitioner was issued a charge sheet in regard to leave taken during the year 1992. The articles of charge were that the Petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent from his duties on several dates in 1992. Of these periods the significant periods of absences were between 23 rd March and 27 th March 1992 for five days, between 31 st March and 10 th April 1992 for eleven days, and between 28 th April and 1 st May 1992 for four days. The rest of the leaves were for half a day, or one or two days. The second article of charge was that on 21 st November 1992 when he was called by Respondent No. 4 for being served with a letter dated 14 th November 1994, the Petitioner refused to accept the said letter. He got up from the chair and walked out of the office of Respondent No. 4 without seeking his permission.

(3.) In the written statement filed on 21 st April, 1997 the Petitioner explained that the charges were not maintainable against him. The enquiry commenced in 1998 but took almost seven years to conclude. The significant portions of the enquiry are recorded in the proceedings of 14 th February 2003 (Annexure P-3). One Shri AK Mehndiratta was the Presiding Officer (PO?). He was asked if he had been able to obtain the original application form submitted by the Petitioner on 17 th February 1992 for sanction of leave for the period between 4 th February and 14 th February, 1992. The PO stated that the original application was not available. Thereafter Mr Bhim Singh Sharma, an assistant DO-1 who was management witness No. 1 (MW-1) was examined. He was asked the following question to which he answered as under: