SATISH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an ex-employee in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi assailing the order dated 17.06.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service, as also the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereunder his appeal challenging this dismissal came to be rejected.

(2.) The petitioner, who was appointed to the post of a 'peon' in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 02.08.2007, applied for and was granted earned leave for the period between 01.04.2012 and 20.04.2012. When he failed to rejoin duty after expiry of this leave period, the petitioner was issued memorandums/show-cause notices dated 22.05.2012, 03.09.2012 and 22.09.2012, which were all returned unserved with the report that he was not residing at the given address. On 13.08.2013, as the petitioner had failed to resume duties or give any explanation for his continued, unauthorised absence, he was issued a memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('CCS Rules' for short), to which he did not reply. Consequently, Shri.M.K.Nagpal, learned Additional Districts and Sessions Judge, Delhi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) It appears that the Enquiry Officer also made several attempts to serve the petitioner through ordinary modes, which remained unsuccessful and, as a result, the petitioner was served by publication on 07.03.2014. When the petitioner still failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, he was proceeded against ex parte on 29.03.2014. During the enquiry, the respondent/Department examined five witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner and upon consideration of the same, the Enquiry Officer vide its report dated 07.05.2014, held the charges as proved. While the enquiry was underway a clarification was sought as to who, in the light of the amendments to Delhi District Courts Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Delhi District Court Rules') which were notified on 02.12.2013, would be the Disciplinary Authority in these proceedings. On a resolution of the aforesaid query, the petitioner was on 18.05.2016 issued a memorandum under Rule 30(2) of the Delhi District Courts Rules calling upon him to submit his representation, if any, to the enquiry report. Notwithstanding the fact that this memorandum, along with a copy of the enquiry report, was sent to all addresses of the petitioner which were available with the respondent, he remained untraceable, despite the efforts of the SHO of the concerned Police Station. Ultimately, the petitioner was served through publication on 08.12.2016.