SURESH CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 153 of Railway 1 Protection Force Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The chargesheet pertained to the alleged unauthorised absence of the petitioner from the duty with effect from 7.4.1995. The charges framed against the petitioner show that he had remained absent for ten months in disobedience s of the orders of the superiors. He did not report back on duty despite various intimations sent to him. After conducting inquiry, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the petitioner stand proved. The inquiry officer also found that on 24.4.1995 after the petitioner was relieved by the D,M.O. Aligarh, the petitioner- remained absent without any information. The inquiry 10 report was. sent to the petitioner for making a representation against that. He did not submit any representation against the inquiry report despite being afforded with an opportunity. Annexure-A/29 records that 15 days time was granted to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he wanted to avail five days Casual 15 Leave for filing reply and since he was not granted time, he did not submit any objection to the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report and found that the delinquent petitioner did not avail the opportunity provided to him. He even failed to submit his objections to the inquiry report. No illegality can be found in the inquiry report and therefore, it 20 was found that ex-parte inquiry held was justified and the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from service.

(3.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order. The appellate authority vide Annexure-33 observed that the appeal has been rejected. The appellate authority found that on perusal of the case filed, it is found that the as petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself He was supplied with the copy of the relevant document and the findings recorded on the charges were also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was charged for remaining absent from duty without reasonable cause for ten months. He only turned up when a chargesheet was issued under Rule 153 so of the Rules. He has reasoned that he was sick and was under treatment of a private doctor. He got himself treated by a private doctor without there being a reasonable cause not to get treated by Railway doctors. The appellate authority was of the opinion that the treatment availed by the petitioner is available in the Railway hospital and they are far better. The reasons given by the petitioner for going to the private doctor has been found to be not convincing in this background, the appellate authority confirmed the findings of the inquiry and punished the petitioner.