PITABAS SAMANTRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Soubhagya Sunder Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Bijay Krishna Mohanty, learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority so also the order dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure-6) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner.

(3.) Facts of the case are that the Petitioner, while working as Constable in the Railway Protection Force, faced a Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 for unauthorized absent from duty. The Enquiry Officer, considering the materials available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, came to hold that the Petitioner is a habitual absentee and the charges against him were established. The Disciplinary Authority, while conceding the proceeding, imposed a major penalty of compulsory retirement against which the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-5 which was dismissed on 17.11.2006 and the order of the disciplinary authority was confirmed. The specific allegation of the Petitioner is that he was not provided with adequate opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority.