KANNAM NAGESWARA RAO Vs. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order, dated 5. 5. 1997 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby he confirmed order, dated 27. 2. 1997 passed by respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE petitioner was a Junior Technician (O) in respondent No. l Company. On the ground of alleged unauthorised absence for a period of 235 days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for different charges, namely, habitual absence from duty for various periods commencing from February, 1995 to September, 1996 for a total period of 235 days and also for violation of Clause Nos. 22. 2 and 22. 4 read with Clause No. 27. 65 of the Certified Standing Orders of respondent No. l - Company. The petitioner failed to submit his explanation to the charge-sheet. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and in response to the notice of enquiry, the petitioner attended the enquiry on 20. 11. 1996. At his request, the enquiry was postponed to 28. 11. 1996. Subsequently, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, which was adjourned on several occasions, and eventually, on 31. 12. 1996, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte and after receiving the documentary evidence marked as Exs. A. l to A. 23, he submitted a report to respondent No. 3. After furnishing a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner, who received the same, respondent No. 3 passed order, dated 27. 2. 1997 imposing on the petitioner penalty of removal from the service of respondent No. 1-Company. The said order was questioned in an appeal before respondent No. 2, who by his order, dated 5. 5. 1997, dismissed the same. Questioning these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) OPPOSING these contentions, Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the facts recorded by the Enquiry Officer clinchingly establish that in spite of giving repeated opportunities, the petitioner did not avail the same and he avoided participating in the enquiry and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer had no option other than proceeding with the enquiry ex parte. The learned Counsel further submitted that after the 42nd amendment of the Constitution, there is no requirement of a final show-cause notice and admittedly, the petitioner was served with the enquiry report and he failed to submit his explanation. He further submitted that as past conduct of the petitioner was relied upon only for the purpose of considering the existence of extenuating circumstances to award lesser punishment, there was no need for the respondents to put the petitioner on notice about the past conduct. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the petitioner failed to participate in the enquiry and give requisition for supply of documents, there was neither occasion nor obligation on the Enquiry Officer to supply the documents. He also submitted that as the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, there was no need for adducing any oral evidence and for marking of documents, no such oral evidence is required to be adduced.