JAI BHAGWAN VERMA Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition impugns the order dated 05.01.2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing O.A. No.1451/2010 preferred by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The said O.A. was preferred impugning the orders of the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of removal from service on the petitioner on charges of unauthorized absence.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Postal Assistant at Rohini Post Office, Delhi from 29.05.2003 to 31.05.2003; according to the respondent, he left the Post Office early without preparing the day account; thereafter from 02.06.2003 to 08.10.2003, he absented from duty without prior permission or intimation and on 09.10.2003 submitted a Medical Certificate of a private Doctor; thereafter again with effect from 21.01.2004, he absented himself without any permission or intimation. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 06.03.2006; however the chargesheet sent to him by post at the address given by him was also returned with the endorsement of the petitioner having left the address; thereafter another letter dated 02.05.2006 was issued to him giving him opportunity to submit his defence; in respect thereto, he submitted a reply dated 02.06.2006 requesting a personal hearing; thereafter an inquiry was initiated. The inquiry officer found, the first charge, of leaving early from 29.05.2003 to 31.05.2003 without preparing the day account, to have been not established; with respect to the charge No.2 of unauthorized absence from 02.06.2003 to 08.10.2003, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner had on 02.06.2003 telephonically informed regarding his illness but had not been able to establish that he was ill during the said time; with respect to the third charge of unauthorized absence from 21.01.2004 till the issuance of the charge-sheet on 06.03.2006, the Inquiry Officer reported that the defence of the petitioner of suffering from serious ailment was not established.

(3.) The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the inquiry report aforesaid, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed.