KRISHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For having remained on unauthorised absence with effect from 14.09.1998 to 06.10.1998 and from 07.10.1998 to 28.02.1999, an enquiry was contemplated against the petitioner by the respondents. Pursuant thereto a notice dated 21.02.2000 was issued by the Enquiry Officer directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be held on 06.03.2000. It seems that on appointment of new Enquiry Officer, another notice dated 06.11.2000 was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 01.05.2000. On receipt of the notice dated 06.04.2000, the petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he received notice on 28.04.2000 and it would not be possible for him to him on 01.05.2000 at Durga Pur (West Bengal) within such a short period. Another notice dated 15.05.2000 came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry officer on 29.05.2000. This notice has been received by the petitioner on 01.06.2000. On 06.07.2000, the petitioner was informed that on his failure to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 29-5-2000, he has been set ex parte. The petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he is unable to appear on 06.07.2000 as he is bed-ridden. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner through a representation made on 10.07.2000 had shown his unwillingness to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the ground that the Enquiry was not conducted fairly and had shown some reservation against the Enquiry Officer. It is important to mention that more than three Enquiry Officers were appointed by the respondents in this case.

(2.) An ex-parte enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted to the appointing authority for appropriate action. The enquiry report reveals that charges framed against the petitioner relate to his unauthorised absence from 04.04.1999. A copy of the report was given to the petitioner, who has submitted his representation against the same to the respondents. It is revealed from the objections filed to the enquiry report that the enquiry proceeded in respect of charge that the petitioner has left the unit without permission on 04.04.1-999 and not in respect of his absence from duty for the dates mentioned hereinabove. After the receipt of the enquiry report, impugned order dated 21.09.2000 came to be passed whereby petitioner has been removed from service. It is this order, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.