Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 422 (MP)

Rajeshwar Rao v. Union of India

2012-04-19

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2012
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 19.10.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sitting at Indore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 755/2004 upholding the order of dismissal of petitioner, this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the employee praying to quash the order of Tribunal and to quash the order of dismissal passed by the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority. 2. The petitioner was serving on the post of Fatigueman. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him in which he did not remain present as a result of which an ex-parte order of dismissal was passed against him on 5.4.1995 (Annexure P/3). However, later on a departmental appeal was filed by the delinquent which was allowed and the matter was sent back to the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer to hold a de novo enquiry after providing opportunity of hearing to the employee. Resultantly, the petitioner appeared in the departmental enquiry. 3. The disciplinary authority on 3.9.1998 (Annexure P/8) found that another charges are required to be framed, eventually another charge sheet framing two additional charges were framed on 3.9.1998. Those additional charges are as under :- (i) The applicant had not intimated school about the fact of his arrest and detention in custody from 17.3.95 to 24.3.95. (ii) That the applicant had submitted false medical certificate on account of his illness when he was actually in jail. 4. Earlier two charges were framed against the petitioner which are reproduced as under :- (i) Absent from duty without proper authority w.e.f. 26.10.94. (ii) Habitual offender of absenting himself from duty without proper authority. 5. After holding a detailed departmental enquiry, all the charges were found to be proved. Eventually the petitioner was punished by the order of dismissal from service. The filing of appeal met the same result as a result of which original application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. 5. After holding a detailed departmental enquiry, all the charges were found to be proved. Eventually the petitioner was punished by the order of dismissal from service. The filing of appeal met the same result as a result of which original application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal came to hold that the charge with regard to habitual offender of absenting himself from duty without proper authority, is not proved, however the charge that the applicant was acquitted by the competent criminal Court vide order dated 11.8.1997 was found to be proved and it was found that the petitioner concealed this fact that he was under detention with effect from 17.3.1995 to 24.3.1995 and not only this he also submitted false medical certificate for this period. Eventually, the original application was dismissed. 6. In this manner this petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order of Tribunal as well as the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the order of the Tribunal are perfunctory and arbitrary in nature. Learned counsel submits that despite having come to a conclusion that the charge that the petitioner was a habitual offender in remaining absent in duty was not found to be proved, the other charge in regard to criminal case has been found to be proved but this fact has been totally blinked away from the eyes of the learned Tribunal as well as the departmental authorities that the delinquent was acquitted from the criminal Court and if that would be the position, he ought to have been taken back in service. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Tribunal dismissing the original application and, therefore, this petition be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. True, the charges levelled against the delinquent in the first charge sheet were not found to be proved by the Tribunal but another charge sheet framing two other charges which we have already mentioned herein above were found to be proved. 10. True, the charges levelled against the delinquent in the first charge sheet were not found to be proved by the Tribunal but another charge sheet framing two other charges which we have already mentioned herein above were found to be proved. We do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that because the petitioner was seriously ill and he has submitted the medical certificate of M.Y. Hospital, it cannot be questioned that he was not ill. According to us, if the veil is uplifted from the scene, the hidden idea to conceal the fact that petitioner was under detention for the period from 17.3.1995 to 24.3.1995 becomes quite visible and exposed and further it would reveal that he was in custody during this period in jail. It was incumbent upon the delinquent employee to inform this vital fact to his employer. Having failed to intimate so, according to us, the view taken by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority as well as the Tribunal cannot be set aside, looking to the limited scope of judicial review. The order of punishment of dismissal from the service also would not be said to be shockingly disproportionate. 11. We do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.