GAUTAM PATHAK Vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-CHAIRMAN OF BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In the present case the petitioner is challenging the order dated 15/23.12.2009 passed in Appeal No. 28 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the BIADA) by which the appeal has been rejected and also for quashing the order of punishment dated 17.3.2008 vide memo No. 2210 which was issued under the signature of the Managing Director, BIADA.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a typist. It appears from the record that the petitioner had filed application for leave on 23.10.2007 for the period 24.10.2007 to 27.10.2007 further he filed application for leave on 29.10.2007 for the period 27.10.2007 to 18.11.2007 and again filed application for leave on 19.11.2007 for the period 19.11.2007 to 30.11.2007 and thereafter the petitioner had joined on 3.12.2007. All the copies were forwarded to the Headquarters as the petitioner was posted at Biharshariff.

(3.) The application dated 23.10.2007 was forwarded by the Regional In-charge to the Managing Director at Head Office on 27.10.2007 and also forwarded the 2nd application on 3.10.2007 for approval but the Regional Office did not receive any reply to the leave application that was filed by the petitioner. The ground which is assigned in the leave application was his illness. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 7.11.2007 where altogether five charges have been mentioned. Charge No. 1: is with regard to his transfer to Buxar from Biharshariff but he did not join there which was construed as misconduct. Charge; No. 2: it has been mentioned that without taking any permission he left the office but in the said charge the date is missing. Charge No. 3: is related to of the year 1981 with respect to typing of some documents which he had not done in time for that a show cause was issued that he had replied is a part of the charge-sheet. Charge No. 4 is of the year 1995 which is also related to the typing material, not submitting in time for that he was served show cause but he had not filed reply. Charge No. 5 is also related to the year 2005 for absence from the office without permission and for that his one day salary was forfeited. It appears that the charge-sheet was sent to his Regional Office, Buxar.