PRAKASH SINGH Vs. COAL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment dated 12th July, 2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4567 of 2008 whereby the petitioner's writ petition has been dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated 26th September, 2007. The allegation against the petitioner was of willfully disobeying the transfer order dated 18th July. 2005 and absenting without leave since 19th July, 2005. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that one doctor had committed suicide and his son lodged F.I.R. wherein the petitioner is a witness and, therefore, the management was not happy with the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was transferred in the year 2004 and petitioner did join at transferred place. However, after lodging of F.I.R., the petitioner was served with a warning letter dated 18.7.2005 staling therein that petitioner is coming at the place of duty after delay and leaving the place earlier. It is also submitted that petitioner's wife is also doctor and since petitioner was transferred only 30 K.M. away, therefore, petitioner used to reside with his wife and, therefore, he used to go to the place of duty but not as alleged by the Management, with delay in going to the duty place and early in coming from duty place. Be that as it may be, one charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner dated 14.6.2005 and during pendency of that enquiry, he was transferred vide order dated 14.7.2005 from Dhanbad to one place in the State of Madhya Pradesh which is about 300 K.M. away. The petitioner then submitted one application for VRS on 19th October, 2005 and also requested that his transfer may be put in abeyance. However, petitioner's transfer order was neither put in abeyance nor VRS was accepted. In one departmental proceeding though the petitioner was punished and his appeal was also dismissed but those orders are challenged by the petitioner separately. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner has levelled allegation against the enquiry officer of the management of mala fide and, therefore, petitioner is being asked to face the departmental proceeding at Kolkata. According to learned counsel for the appellant, due to mala fide only the petitioner's application for VRS is not being considered, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for VRS. Petitioner also challenged the departmental proceeding initiated by charge-sheet dated 14-6-3005.

(3.) The learned single Judge rejected the petitioner's contention, hence, the L.P.A.