SHIPRA CHATTERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before me is the wife of one Sukhendu Chatterjee, an employee of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL). On 20th November, 2006 it appears that he had left his residential house and did not return. He has been missing since then. At that point of time he was working in section (Mail) of the Durgapur Steel Plant. In that regard, a missing diary was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of Durgapur Police Station on 25th November, 2006. It has been submitted by Mr. Panda, learned Advocate for the petitioner that she has been trying to trace her husband since then, but her efforts have not yet yielded any result. Apart from lodging the diary with the police authorities, she claims to have inserted several publications in the newspapers in the form of information and appeal to the general public as well as to her missing husband. Such publication carrying photographs of her husband appears to have been published in Ananda Bazar Patrika on three occasions and once in a local daily. Photocopies of two newspaper publications in Ananda Bazar Patrika dated 31st October have been annexed to the petitioner collectively marked "p3". It is the admitted position that during the period he has remained missing, a disciplinary proceeding was instituted against him by his employer, SAIL primarily on the ground of having committed misconduct. The misconduct attributed to the husband of the petitioner is habitual absence from duty without leave or permission of the employer. Notices of the said proceeding were sent to his home at different stages of the enquiry, which were received by the petitioner herself. She responded to these notices informing the concerned authority that her husband was missing and she had requested for permission to appear before the enquiry board,

(2.) The employer however had continued with the disciplinary proceeding and has imposed punishment of removal from service against him after concluding the enquiry in his absence. This has been brought to my notice by Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the respondents. He further submits that his punishment would not disentitle him from future employment if he reappears.

(3.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily challenged the disciplinary proceeding as well as punishment imposed on her missing husband.