DEBASISH PANIGRAPHI Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant as against the order of punishment imposed on him by the respondents.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the appellant was absent from duties for a long period of more than four years and, therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence during the period from 09. 02. 2001 to 25. 04. 2005. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charge levelled against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and thereafter submitted his report, finding the appellant guilty of the charge regarding unauthorized absence. In fact, the aforesaid charge of unauthorized absence was specifically admitted by the charged officer during the course of inquiry. The only defence that was sought to be given by the appellant was regarding his domestic problem. Thus, admittedly the appellant, who was a responsible Government officer, remained absent from duties unauthorizedly and, therefore, he was guilty of the charge. The punishment, which was awarded by the disciplinary authority was reduction in pay in the present time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also to treat the period of absence from duty as not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The aforesaid order passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Lt. Governor of Delhi is the Appellate Authority, who considered the aforesaid appeal and on consideration of the records rejected the said appeal under order dated 28. 05. 2007.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, a writ petition was filed, which was considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge specifically recorded in her order that there is no allegation by the appellant that the inquiry proceedings were improperly conducted or that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice. On a perusal of the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears to us that the only plea which was taken by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was regarding the quantum of punishment imposed on the appellant, which, according to the counsel was very harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. The learned single Judge considered the said plea in the light of the records and held that the said punishment cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate to the charges established when it is considered in terms of the long absence from duty of the appellant, which was unjustified and, therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment was disproportionate.