LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-305

AHMAD ABBAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA THRO.SECY.

Decided On December 04, 2019
Ahmad Abbas Appellant
V/S
Union Of India Thro.Secy. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard SRi Ram Lakhan Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 13.06.1999, whereby, the petitioner has been removed from service as well as the order of appellate authority dated 26.11.1999, whereby, the order of punishment has come to be affirmed.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was Constable working in Railway Protection Force, was served with the charge sheet for absenting from duty w.e.f. 10.08.1998 as he was assigned duty in Train No. 24215-UP, Ganga Gomti Express on the said date, he did not report and absented and thereafter he never reported for duty, resultantly the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with issuance of said charge sheet. The petitioner did submit reply to the said charge sheet and thereafter, the inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer. In the inquiry report that was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence from duty since 09.08.1998. Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner that was accompanied by the inquiry report seeking his reply in the matter. The petitioner did submit the reply which was properly perused and thereafter, the disciplinary authority also fixed 03.02.1999 for personal hearing to be afforded to the petitioner. On the date of personal hearing, the petitioner did appear and participated in the hearing and taken lenient view in the matter, the disciplinary authority asked him to resume duty. However, delinquent employee failed to resume his duty and thus it was considered to be a case of gross disobedience and disciplinary authority thereafter proceeded to pass an order of punishment taking stern action of removal from service under the order dated 03.06.1999. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order and in the appeal the grounds raised in the appeal were considered by the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority has found on the material placed before it, that the petitioner was rightly held guilty for unauthorized leave from 09.08.1999 and thus declined to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority finding it to be absolutely correct one. The appeal was found to be sans force and was accordingly rejected.