AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed in Minor Irrigation Tabeweli Corporation as Peon on 5. 5. 1979. He remained in service upto 5. 5. 1998. Thereafter, he was appointed by way of transfer in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") by order dated 24. 4. 1998. The petitioner joined with District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind-respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") and continued to perform the duties satisfactorily. From 4. 3. 2002, the petitioner could not perform his duties as he was suffering from Psychiatric disorder and he was under treatment. Son of the petitioner informed the respondents about the ailment of the petitioner. By letter dated 24. 4. 2002, he requested that his father be sanctioned leave as he is not in a position to attend to his duties. The respondents were also informed that the petitioner will join duties on recovery. On 16. 4. 2002, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice asking for his explanation as he had been found to be absent from duty from 4. 3. 2002. The petitioner was asked to give the reply within seven days. Again a notice was issued on 21. 6. 2. 002 seeking the explanation of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 26. 3. 2003, the petitioner has been removed from service. The order clearly states that the petitioner has been absent from duty w. e. f. 4. 3. 2002 till the date of the order. Therefore, he has been ordered to be removed from service. The petitioner through his wife filed an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal has also been dismissed, without giving any reason whatsoever. The petitioner thereafter approached the Government by serving a legal notice. However, the claim of the petitioner has again been rejected.

(2.) THE respondents have filed a written statement. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 5. 11. 1998 to 4. 4. 1999. He again remained absent from duty on 2. 11. 2001 and from 23. 1. 2002 to 14. 2. 2002 and on 22. 2. 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner absented from duty from 4. 3. 2002 till the order was passed terminating his services. He was issued notices on 16. 4. 2002 and 21. 6. 2002 asking him to join duty. He continued to remain absent. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 8. 8. 2002 stating that action of imposing penalty under Sub Rule (IX) under Rule 4 of the (Punishment and Appeal Rules), 1987 would be taken against him unless he joins duty. All these warnings were ignored by the petitioner. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is legal and justified.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.