MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been found guilty of charges that during the year 2000 from the month of January to August, 2000, he tampered with the record by applying white fluid at the portions wherever he was marked absent. He has also been found guilty for the second charge that he is habitual of remaining absent and coming late to the office. The petitioner was suspended on August 24, 2000 but he was reinstated on January 15, 2001, during the pendency of the enquiry. A detailed departmental enquiry has been held where the petitioner has been granted full opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, (for brevity 'the Rules'). Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to impose upon him the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. After due consideration, the Punishing Authority imposed the punishment as proposed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal as admissible under the Rules. The appellate order dated July 15, 2003 was set aside by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15673 of 2003, decided on March 22, 2004, on the ground that the Appellate Authority did not consider all the three factors as specified in Rule 11 of the Rules. The Division Bench further directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh after giving him opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was also granted permission to file additional memorandum of appeal which he availed. The Appellate Authority, has again passed the impugned order dated September 27, 2004.

(2.) The petitioner was granted personal hearing in addition to the opportunity of filing additional memorandum of appeal as was permitted by the Division Bench. The Appellate Authority has concluded that the petitioner is an irresponsible official as it was proved on record that he had been habitual to come late to the office. It has also been found that he has been making changes in the attendance register from time to time by applying white fluid.

(3.) After detection of tampering, he submitted leave application. In respect of the second charge, it has been found that in the past also, he was punished thrice for absence from duty on June 30, 1992, October 17, 1994 and July 19, 1995 under Rule 8 of the Rules. He was administered warning to be careful in future on January 23, 1996. He was found absent from the office on April 16, 2001 when his one day salary was deducted. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by the Punishing Authority on September 3, 2002 was upheld.