ABRAHAM JOSEPH PADIJATTIDOM Vs. MANAGER, MAR THOMA COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter pertains to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent way back on 26.08.1995, ending up in removal from service. The sequence of events is as follows:

(2.) The petitioner was serving as a Senior Lecturer in the respondent institution and he was having nearly eighteen years of unblemished service, as put forth by the learned counsel. In the enthusiasm to get further qualification, particularly by way research, the petitioner wanted to go abroad. It was accordingly that, Exhibit M1 application was stated as made on 01.07.1995 seeking for 'leave without allowance' for a period of two years, from 14.08.1995 to 13.08.1997. As per Exhibit M2 reply, the respondent informed the petitioner that his request was not liable to be considered at that time, as some disciplinary proceedings were going on against him and that it could be dealt with only after culmination of the said proceedings. This was in respect of a charge sheet issued on 05.11.1994.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner had to join the institution abroad and commence the assignment given to him was to commence on 30.08.1995. The petitioner sent another letter vide Exhibit M3 on 28.08.1995 requesting the respondent management to recommend the leave. According to the petitioner, he was orally instructed that the same would be done and it was allegedly on the basis of the 'blessings', as given in the opening paragraphs of the revision petition, that he went abroad on 28.08.1995. The learned counsel submits that, as a measure of caution, the petitioner had also made an application for 'half pay leave' on 28.08.1995, for a period of 117 days. However, because of the hostile attitude nurtured against the petitioner, a charge memo was issued to him stating that he was continuing in unauthorised absence. It was accordingly, that an enquiry officer was identified, proceeding with further steps. Meanwhile, in respect of the previous charge, the enquiry was finalised and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of reduction of two increments, as per proceedings dated 14.10.1995. It is stated that the said order stands interdicted by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioner.