DEVI PRASAD TEKAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order by which the Disciplinary Authority has terminated the services of the petitioner and against the subsequent order by which his appeal has been dismissed by the Departmental Appellate Authority. The petitioner, who was engaged on compassionate basis, as a Messenger in the service of the respondent M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'Corporation' for short), was issued certain show cause notices informing him about his absence from duty and lastly when proper response was not submitted by him, a notice was sent to him indicating that in case appropriate explanation is not submitted, the services of the petitioner would be dispensed with. It is contended by the petitioner that though on certain occasion he was issued the show cause but without conducting any enquiry whatsoever, holding that the petitioner has committed misconduct like remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly and by giving false medical certificates, the order impugned was passed. Since no enquiry whatsoever was conducted, the petitioner could not take up his defence. He could not explain the fact relating to registration of criminal case against him by the Police and his prosecution in the Court of law. All these grounds the petitioner has raised in his appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority but since the Appellate Authority has also not considered all these grounds and has mechanically passed the order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(2.) In response to the allegations made in the writ petition, by filing a return it is contended by the respondents that petitioner was engaged in the services of the Corporation with effect from 02.08.2001 but it appears that he was not very much interested in service. Till the date of termination, i.e. 22.12.2003, the petitioner has absented himself from duty regularly. From the month of October, 2001 onwards almost every month the petitioner has remained absent from duty without any proper application. The petitioner was called upon to improve his working and to follow the law and the rules. The show cause notices were issued to him communicating him that in case sufficient cause is not shown for unauthorized absence from duty, the penalty of withholding of one increment of pay will be issued. No response to these show cause was given by the petitioner. On one occasion the petitioner did appear, submitted certain medical certificates regarding his illness. However, as it was found that in the medical certificates the designation of the post of the petitioner was shown to be L.D.C., the same were found to be incorrect and forged one. It is alleged that in fact petitioner was involved in a criminal case as was gathered from the Police department that the petitioner was involved in a case under Sections 365, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since no response was submitted by the petitioner to the show cause, ultimately it was found that the petitioner was not interested in serving in the Corporation and, therefore, his services were rightly terminated. These facts were rightly taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and appeal of the petitioner has also rightly been dismissed. It is vehemently contended that the person who has remained absent from duty without any justified reason, who has submitted false medical certificates of illness and who has not declared anything about his involvement in the criminal case, was not to be permitted to remain in the employment and, therefore, rightly the services of the petitioner were terminated and his appeal was dismissed. Since these facts were also considered by the Appellate Authority and appeal was dismissed, no scope is left to exercise power of judicial review in the matter of punishment imposed on the petitioner, in the given circumstances. It is, thus, claimed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned senior Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.