SOM NATH RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that he came to be appointed as temporary labour (Mazdoor) on 6th May, 1994. The petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner further stated that two years period of probation was completed on 6/5/1996. The petitioner proceed on leave and ten days leave was sanctioned from 29th August 1996 to 7th September, 1996. After the expiry of the leave, the petitioner, however, over stayed and did not join. According to the petitioner, he fell ill and remained under medical treatment from 6th November, 1996 to 20th December, 1996. His absence, however, was treated as misconduct and was served with show cause notice under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules of 1965. This communication is stated to have been received by the petitioner after the specified date and was, thus prevented to submit the reply to the show cause notice dated 22nd November, 1996, which came to be followed by termination order passed by commanding officer, Respondent - 5. The petitioner approached the court by filing writ petition, SWP No. 524/97, and challenged the order of termination on account of unauthorised absence. The petitioner also assailed the punishment of termination of his services on account of absence, that too due to his ailment and under medical treatment, too harsh and excessive. The court while disposing of the writ petition on 25 -3 -1998 directed the respondent authorities to re -examine the matter with regard to the quantum of punishment and provide relief to the petitioner as may be deemed appropriate. It is also stated by the petitioner that the case was examined by the respondent authorities and rejected the same without assigning any cogent reasons that the punishment commensurated with the act of the petitioner.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents in their counter filed to the writ petition is that the petitioner over - stayed after the expiry of the period of leave and did not make any attempt at any point of time to seek extension of his leave or informed the office about his absence. It is also stated that the petitioner remained under treatment from 6th November petitioner remained under treatment from 6th November, 1996 to 20th December, 1996, but period of absence without leave from 8th September, 1996 to 6th November, 1996 remained unexplained. That the absence of the petitioner during this period was without any valid reasons. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the address given by the petitioner in his leave application and a complete opportunity was given to him to explain his unauthorised absence from duty. That the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was passed as per the desire and willingness expressed in his application dated 16.8.1996. That the unit was engaged in OP commitment during that period. The petitioner despite repeated communications and show cause notice did not report on duty. That the order of his termination on account of his unauthorised absence from duty and unfit to serve in any government services was passed under the existing Rules and Regulations and the punishment awarded, therefore, commensurated with his gross misconduct.

(3.) I have heard the learned council for the parties and also meticulously perused the record.