CORNELLIUS PATHAW Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application under Article 226 has been filed assailing the impugned termination order dated 18.08.2014, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from service of Driver in the Department of Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Meghalaya, Shillong. The brief facts are that the petitioner in the year 1990 was appointed on temporary basis which was regularized thereafter in 1997. On being transferred vide order dated 30.10.2003, the petitioner being aggrieved had represented against the same but the same was rejected vide office order dated 03.11.2003 and he was directed to join his place of posting within 15(fifteen) days. It appears that the petitioner did not join to his new posting which thereafter resulted in a show cause notice being issued to the petitioner on 30.09.2006 under Rule 9 of the Meghalaya (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 as adapted along with a statement of allegations. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings proceeded and show cause/written statement of defense were filed by the petitioner and from the materials of records it is seen that on the basis of an enquiry report, the termination order was issued.
(2.) Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it is a fact that the petitioner had absented himself from duties, the reasons were that he was in ill health and was also not allowed to join to his new place of posting. That apart, he submits that the Departmental Proceedings after its initiation were delayed and in fact had come to a complete standstill and that thereafter the Department had even agreed to settle the case of the petitioner by allowing him to go on voluntary retirement, which was however belied as the respondent No. 3 instead issued the order of termination. He submits that the departmental proceedings not being in accordance with the prescribed procedure was vitiated and as such prayed that the impugned termination order being illegal be set aside.
(3.) Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA in his reply has contended that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner which was for a long period in fact over 5(five) years had made him liable to be dealt with under F.R. 19 of the Meghalaya FR and SR Rules. He further submits that the petitioner never made any attempt to join his new place of posting and in fact was avoiding to resume his duties which made him liable for departmental proceedings which were accordingly drawn up and which had rightly resulted in the termination of the service of the petitioner. He further submits that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner rendered him unfit to be kept in service and that the departmental proceedings cannot be said to have been vitiated as the petitioner had examined the materials and was aided by a Defense Assistant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.