D N TALATI Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr I.S. Supehia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant was serving as an Epidemeologist-cum-Sanitary Supervisor (ECSS) in the Health Department of District Panchayat, Junagadh. He had applied for permission to go abroad and for leave. He was given 'No Objection Certificate' to leave the country for six months and had been sanctioned leave for six months from 1.3.1998 till 26.8.1998. On expiry of the period of leave, the appellant applied for further leave from 27.8.1998 to 21.2.1999. The leave was granted upto 21st February, 1999. After expiry of the extended period of leave, the appellant did not report for duty. Instead, he went on applying for further leave on the ground of sickness of his wife who was taking medical treatment in USA and he was required to attend to her. Neither of the applications was granted and further leave was refused. The appellant was intimated the decision of the competent authority and informed him to report for duty. In spite of the intimations, the appellant did not care to return to India and report for duty. Thus, he remained absent from service for about three years and four months and also overstayed in foreign country in violation of above referred 'No Objection Certificate' granted to him.

(2.) DISCIPLINARY action was initiated against the appellant by issuing charge sheet on 16.7.2002. The Inquiry officer, after holding due inquiry, submitted his report. The Inquiry Officer was of the opinion that the appellant had sent medical reports of his wife and thus he had a valid reason to remain absent from duty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer. The appellant was, therefore, on 8.10.2002, given a notice to show cause why the charges levelled against him shall not be held to be proved and why he should not be dismissed from service. The disciplinary authority, not agreeing with the reply submitted by the appellant, held that the charges levelled against him were proved and ordered removal of the appellant from service. The appellant challenged the removal order by filing Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 22.11.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11376 of 2002 dismissed the writ petition. The appellant is challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has dismissed the petition by recording the following findings: