PURSHOTTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.10.2005 by preferring this writ petition as petitioner has been removed from services in disciplinary proceedings which was initiated on account of his absence from duty without any leave.

(2.) The petitioner was granted leave for a short period from 13.11.2004 to 17.11.2004, but thereafter, he did not report. Then ultimately after holding a preliminary inquiry and departmental inquiry vide order dated 25.10.2005 he has been removed from service.

(3.) To explain the delay, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shibha Shanker Mohapatra & Ors Vs. State of Orissa & ors reported in AIR 2010 SC 706 and submits that delay of 3-4 years is reasonable period for challenging the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jai Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1996 SC 492 and also relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of Bhanwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999 (2) WLC (Raj.) 30 wherein the punishment of removal from service on account of absence from duty was declared to be disproportionate.