MAJOR PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner has questioned the Inquiring officer's report dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), removal order dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure P-11), Appellate order dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P-12) and the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P15). The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the respondent Department. He was charge-sheeted on 16.8.2008 for over staying from 08.02.2008 (forenoon) and remained absent from duty without the permission of any competent authority. Charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner to a wrong address.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had applied leave for the period from 02.02.2008 to 07.02.2008. During leave period the petitioner's grand-father and his sister died in motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, petitioner himself fell ill. Initially he took treatment from Government Hospital and later with Private doctor. Thus, he was compelled to remain absent from 08.02.2008 till 24.11.2008. He reported back to duty on 25.11.2008. He was assigned duty on 2.12.2008. Remaining unauthorized absence for the above period was due to genuine reason that petitioner's grand-father and sister died in motor vehicle accident. He was mentally ill for which he was taking treatment. In this regard, he had produced medical certificate before the Inquiring Officer.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge-sheet was sent and post was returned stating that addressee is not available. Therefore, disciplinary authority proceeded for appointing Inquiry Officer to hold ex-parte enquiry. Inquiring Officer has rightly rejected the medical certificate produced by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should have taken treatment with the Government hospital. Even though, the petitioner was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but the petitioner failed to take treatment in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Thus, the Inquiring Officer rejected the medical certificate. It is further contended that it is an admitted fact that petitioner remained absent after expiry of leave period. If an employee remained unauthorized absent for a longer period, punishment of removal would be ideal. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority.