K. MANICKYAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above application is filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the order at Annexure. A -9 dated 20.10.2009 bearing No. 1(43)1/A/09 -10 and also the orders of the Appellate Authority vide Annexure A -12 dated 26.10.2010 bearing No. C -16014/6/2008 -W.I. further relief of direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant back into service and treat the entire period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as on duty with all consequential benefits. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the case are the applicant while working as Driver under the respondents, was kept under suspension vide order dated 4.2.2008. The said order of suspension was revoked vide order dated 30.6.2008 and he was transferred from Nippani to Derlekatte, Dakshina Kannada District. While he was under suspension he was served with a charge memo dated 26.3.2008 along with imputation of four article of charges and the list of documents. Subsequently inquiry officer was appointed. The applicant was given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings and allowed him to cross examine the witnesses. The inquiry officer submitted his report in which Articles I, II and IV are proved, Article III is not proved. The applicant submitted his representation to the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority after considering the charge memo, proceedings of the inquiry report and the representation of the applicant, exercised the powers vested in him and imposed the penalty of "Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government". The applicant submitted his statutory appeal dated 21.11.2009. When no action was taken on the appeal, he submitted his reminder dated 9.4.2010. The Appellate Authority has considered the appeal and upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure A -12). Being aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Authority, the applicant's wife submitted a representation dated 4.4.2011 for reinstatement of applicant into service.

(3.) PER contra the respondents have filed their reply statement, denied the allegations of bias and malafide. The applicant from inception, never discharged his duties with honesty and sincerity and rather always fell to the adverse notice of the authorities which unbearably arrogance in discharging his official duties as Driver. He is habitual complainant complaining during his entire service career in writing false letters from bottom to top officials without bothering to prove his allegation. In this background the applicant was never in the habit of obeying the orders or the directions issued by the higher authorities. He was required to be sent on deputation to Neeleshwar in Kerala State for 15 days. An order was passed and handed over to the applicant with a direction to go and report for duty at the above said place. Instead of accepting the same, the applicant went out of office and applied for casual leave and tried to avoid the said orders of deputation. Medical officer on duty rightly refused his request for casual leave. Since the applicant refused to accept the deputation orders, the same was posted to his residential address by RPAD which was returned back with postal share "refused". The same was reported to the higher authorities at Bangalore vide Fax Message dated 1.2.2008, which was immediately responded and resulted in order of suspension passed against the applicant by the 2nd respondent. The said order of suspension was revoked subsequently vide order dated 30.6.2008.