HARI KRISHNA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 13th April, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 687 of 2010 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, whereby the challenge to the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner on 19th March, 2004 and the order dated 30th July, 2010 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of punishment, remained unsuccessful.

(2.) The petitioner was served with a charge -sheet on 24th October, 2003 for remaining absent unauthorizedly from 12th November, 2012 to 3rd July, 2003 comprising 234 days violating rule 32(6) of the C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972. After serving with a charge memo for his unauthorized absence, the Petitioner is said to have confessed vide letter dated 11th December, 2003. The disciplinary authority passed the order of compulsory retirement on the basis of such admission. The appeal against the said order was dismissed.

(3.) The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that no enquiry was conducted and the order of punishment was passed on the basis of communicated dated 11.12.2003. Such writing was obtained from the petitioner on blank paper which has been used as admission of guilt. The said document of admission of guilt is available at page 54 of the paper book. It shows that he has admitted his absence from duty on account of illness either of himself or his family members. He has prayed that he be exonerated of the charges. Such writing dated 11.12.2003 is attested by Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and Defence Assistant. In appeal, the learned appellate authority considered the arguments raised and observed as under: -