KAILASH CHANDER HANS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought judicial review of the order dated 9.4.2001 (Annexure P -13), passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application 725 of 1994.

(2.) WE may, first, notice the relevant facts. Writ petitioner was serving as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in Irrigation and Public Health Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. He willfully absented from duty from 12.10.1984 to 5.3.1985 while serving at Pumping Station, Gumma. He applied for leave from 11.4.1985 to 16.4.1985 and proceeded to avail the same without getting it sanctioned from the competent authority and did not report for duty till 22nd December, 1989. In the year 1985, he was transferred to Bharmaur in Chamba District. He did not join there. Instead he submitted resignation on 3.8.1985, on which no action was taken by the concerned authorities. The fact remains that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 13.4.1985 to 23.12.1989 on which date he went to the office of Engineer -in -Chief and asked for assigning work. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for willful absence from duty from 12.10.1984 to 5.3.1985 and again from 13.4.1985 to 23.12.1989 and also for his having not joined duty at Bharmaur pursuant to the transfer order passed sometime in the year 1985. Chargesheet was framed and served upon him. On his pleading not guilty, inquiry was ordered. Inquiry Officer found him guilty of two charges, namely, remaining willfully absent from duty from 11.4.1985 till the date of framing of the charge i.e. 30.3.1991 and also for not joining his duty at Bharmaur pursuant to the transfer order and thereby disobeying the aforesaid order of his employer. Disciplinary authority, after following the procedure, prescribed for affording an opportunity to the delinquent of making representation against inquiry report upheld the findings of the Inquiry Officer and ultimately imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement of service, vide order dated 28.4.1994 (Annexure P -19).

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, we find that inquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Rules 11 and 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which rules govern the petitioner. There is nothing on record indicating that the Inquiry Officer had any bias against the petitioner. His findings are based on the evidence on record, as also the admitted fact that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 11.4.1985 to 30.3.1991 when the chargesheet was framed. It is also not in dispute that petitioner was transferred to Bharmaur vide order dated 31st May, 1985 and he did not join at Bharmaur and instead he submitted resignation on 3.8.1985 (Annexure P -3). No doubt, the authorities were supposed to have passed appropriate order on the resignation of the petitioner within reasonable time and they did not do so, but that would not exonerate the petitioner of the charge of willful absence from duty for as long a period as six years and also for not obeying the orders of his transfer from Shimla to Bharmaur nor does the aforesaid lapse on the part of the concerned authorities even mitigate the gravity of the acts of misconduct of willful absence from duty for a very long period and disobedience of transfer order. So it cannot be said that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are not based on material or evidence on record.