NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning the order dated 11th August, 2008 passed in OA No. 2261 of 2007, Narender Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and others dismissing the original application of the petitioner. The said original application had been filed to challenge the order dated 4th October, 2005 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner and the order dated 20th July, 2007 and 13th september, 2006 dismissing his appeal and intimating the effective date of compulsory retirement of W. P. (C.) No. 7287 0f 2008 Page 1 of 10 the petitioner and declining the request of the petitioner for reinstatement in the service with all the consequential benefits. The petitioner had remained absent without leave with effect from 28th March, 2004 to 10th April, 2005 and again from 12th April, 2005 till the passing of the order dated 4th October, 2005 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on account of absence without prior permission of the competent authority. The punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner after a memo dated 18th february, 2005 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner at his residential address available in the records of the respondents which was received back undelivered. A notice under Rule 19 (ii)dated 21st March, 2005 was also published in the local newspapers, Dainik jagran and Indian Express on 28th March, 2005.

(2.) IT had also transpired that complaint dated 10th February, 2005 was received from Sh. Inder Singh Ruhill along with photocopy of arrest warrant issued against the petitioner and another complaint dated 19th April, 2005 was received from Shri Raj Singh regarding non-refund of loan amount of Rs. 1. 00 lakh. The cheque given by the petitioner to these persons had also bounced.

(3.) THE petitioner was proceeded ex parte in the enquiry proceedings. However, later on while challenging the order of punishment imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the petitioner had contended that he was sick and he had requested for leave but instead of considering his request for leave, he was issued major penalty chargesheet vide memo dated 17th February, 2005 which was never served on him and the Inquiry officer did not follow the prescribed procedure while giving his report. It was also contended that the copy of the inquiry report was not served on him and, therefore, the order dated 4th October, 2005 compulsorily retiring him from service is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. The applicant also contended that he was transferred on 1st February, 2005. The transfer order was also sent on the wrong address and therefore, he could not receive it. The petitioner also contended that he was absent due to sickness and he had submitted the medical certificate.