SATYA NARAIN SHARMA Vs. RSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE appears to be a checkered history of the present case. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13. 8. 1974. He was promoted on the post of Helper vide order dated 21. 8. 1978. While working as Cleaner and Helper in the Work-shop of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had continuously remained in contact with the diesel/lubricated oil for cleaning/repairing the vehicles. With the continuous contact of lubricants, the petitioner got his hands and feet infected. In view of serious infection on both the hands and the feet, the petitioner could not attend his duties regularly and had to undergo treatment in ESI Hospital.

(2.) IT was because of his absence from duties, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 30. 9. 1983. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority, while giving him a warning, ordered his reinstatement vide order dated 11. 4. 1984. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 25. 1. 1988 for remaining absent from duty without leave for the period mentioned therein Though, an enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 27. 2. 1988, no further proceedings were ever drawn in regard to the charge sheet dated 25. 1. 1988.

(3.) THERE is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why the enquiry was not proceeded with in regard to charge sheet dated 25. 1. 1988 when the enquiry officer had already been appointed vide order dated 27. 2. 1988. The observations and recommendations made by the enquiry officer way back in the year 1995 have also not been controverted so far. Once having regularised the entire period of absence from 1978 till December, 1996 vide order dated 22. 3. 2001 with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future, I find no justification, whatsoever, for proceeding with the enquiry in regard to the charge sheet issued way back on 25. 1. 1988 and imposing a punishment of dismissal for remaining absence for the period from January, 1987 to December, 1987. When the entire period prior and post to the above period had been regularised by the same authority with a warning to the petitioner, there is no justification in imposing an extreme punishment of dismissal thereafter. THERE is no dispute that in view of the physical condition of the petitioner, place of posting was changed to the Printing Division of the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13. 3. 1997 and nothing has been placed on record to show any complaint against the petitioner after joining his duties in the Printing Division after March, 1997.