SURINDER SINGH Vs. DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks judicial review of the order dated 03.08.2013 passed by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (NE) imposing penalty of removal from service upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.01.2017 (in short 'the impugned orders').

(2.) Concisely, the facts emerging from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis as Peon/Orderly by the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 29.01.1997 and later, regularized in the year 1998. In the year 2009, he came to be transferred to and posted at Karkardooma Courts. While posted at Karkardooma Courts, he started absenting unauthorisedly and departmental enquiries ensued. At the time of passing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2013, the petitioner stood penalised for his unauthorised absence for the period from 15.02.2010 to 24.02.2010 having been awarded punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect while two departmental enquiries for his absence for the period from 30.6.2010 to 30.9.2010 and 5.9.2012 to 2.8.2013 were still pending. Departmental enquiry for his unauthorised absence with effect from 03.01.2011 to 09.03.2011; 14.03.2011 to 02.04.2011 and from 12.05.2011 onwards, culminated into the passing of the impugned orders.

(3.) According to the petitioner, on account of sickness, he was unable to attend to his duties for the periods he absented. On his joining duties on 10.03.2011, he had furnished a medical certificate (which is not disputed by the department and is found to be genuine). The petitioner initially joined the subject departmental enquiry but later, absented. In order to prove the charges, the department examined three of its witnesses viz. SW-1 Ms. Asha Rani, Asstt., Leave Section (NE); SW-2 Ms. Rajni Chattwal, Supdt.Admin.(NE); and, SW-3 Dr.Rashmi Aggarwal, BAMS, Raj Bala Hospital, Trauma and Surgery Centre. None of these three witnesses were cross-examined as neither the petitioner appeared for the purpose nor had any representation before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer returned the finding for the charges of unauthorised absence proved. Notice thereof was issued to the petitioner and thereon, the petitioner made a representation and was also given a hearing by the Ld. District & Sessions Judge, KKD. Vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2013 the Ld. District & Sessions Judge (NE) imposed penalty of removal from service and that was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Hence, this petition.