K RAGHAVA REDDY Vs. REGISTRAR OSMANIA UIVERSITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed questioning the order of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide Proceedings No.MR-169/542/77/Estt.I dated 24.7.1999 of the first respondent. It appears, petitioner joined the service of respondent-University as Junior Assistant with effect from 1.7.1977. According to the petitioner, he availed medical leave from 20.6.1994 to 25.12.1995. However, he was not permitted to join the duty. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 19917 of 1996, which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 27.9.1996 directing the respondents to issue posting orders and in pursuance thereof, petitioner was permitted to join the duty. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 7.12.1996. A charge memo was issued on 30.5.1998 and after conducting a detailed inquiry into the charges, petitioner was imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement from service by order dated 24.7.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was also rejected on 3.11.1999. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that as many as three enquiry officers were appointed for enquiry into the very same charges. The first enquiry officer held the petitioner not guilty of the charges and the said report was neither accepted nor rejected. Thereafter, second enquiry officer was appointed and the said enquiry officer held that since the appointment of earlier enquiry officer was not cancelled, conducting of second enquiry does not arise. In spite of the same, third enquiry officer was appointed and the said enquiry officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The charges framed against the petitioner, in brief, are as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel for petitioner states that since the first enquiry was not concluded, conducting of second enquiry does not arise and no reasons were furnished for conducting such enquiry. Though the second enquiry officer refused to conduct enquiry, third enquiry officer was appointed. While appointing the third enquiry officer, no reasons were furnished as to why the report of the first enquiry officer was not accepted. The enquiry itself was not properly conducted and absolutely there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges. Assuming that the charges are proved, imposing of punishment of compulsory retirement for such a misconduct of absenteeism from duty is disproportionate to that of the misconduct.