NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anup Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel' to Advocate General for the State.

(2.) Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order contained in memo no. 500 dated 29.4.2005 (Annexure-23) whereby the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement.

(3.) Petitioner was holding a Class-Ill post in the Department of Finance, Govt.of Bihar. He was transferred from Nalanda to Bhojpur at Arrah by order dated 16.1.2003 as contained in Annexure-2. Subsequently he was deputed at the head-quarter for discharge of his official duties. The respondents found him truant as on several occasions he was found absent from duty. Accordingly, the authority decided to initiate proceeding in which charge(s) were framed and sent to the known/given address of the petitioner. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice calling upon him to submit his show cause. Finding no way out the authorities published the notice in a newspaper which ultimately brought the petitioner before the enquiry officer where an application seems to have been filed on his behalf. The said application is Annexure-17. The enquiry officer, by communication contained in Annexure-18, made over the copy of the articles of charge and directed him to submit his show cause within 3 days. It appears that neither any show-cause was filed nor the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer faced with this situation proceeded with the enquiry and ultimately submitted enquiry report as would appear from the document placed at Annexure-20. In the enquiry report the charge leveled against the petitioner for being absent for diverse periods set out in the article of charge(s) were found to have been proVed. The enquiry officer thereafter directed issuance of a second show cause notice on the petitioner to explain why punishment in the shape of compulsory retirement be not inflicted. The said communication is at Annexure-21. A perusal whereof indicates that copy of the enquiry report was made over to him and he was called upon to submit his response on the proposed punishment to be inflicted on him for the charge(s) proved against him. Petitioner submitted his reply as would appear from Annexure-22. The respondent Secretary (the disciplinary authority), on a consideration of the materials on record, concurred with the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was most indisciplined and irresponsible Government servant and was in the habit of absenting himself from the office for diverse periods, inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement which has been impugned in the present application.