Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. - (1.) The respondent was holding the post of Assistant Director Grade I in the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals with effect from 27-12-1967. He was sent on deputation to the Ministry of External Affairs as Director (Shipping) and was posted at the High Commission of India in London from 18-7-1975 for a period of three years. The period of his deputation expired on 18-7-1978. Thereupon he was informed on 24-10-1978 by the Counsellor (Political and Admn.) High Commission of India, London to make preparation for his departure to New Delhi where he was being transferred with immediate effect. The respondent made representations against his transfer. However, his representations were rejected and he was informed that the Ministry of External Affairs had decided that he should relinquish charge of his office on 15-12-1978. The respondent gave various excuses for not handing over charge. He said that he was suffering from a slip-disc. Then he said that his wife was not well. Ultimately, he also asked for leave. On 27-12-1978, the respondent was informed that he will be deemed to have relinquished charge on the evening of 7-12-1978. The respondent, however, purported to go on medical leave. He reported for duty at the High Commission of India in London on 7-2-1979 but he was not allowed to join. Thereafter the respondent applied for grant of ex-India leave for two months with effect from 9-2-1979.
(2.) By order dated 14-2-1979 the applicant was relieved of his duties as Director (Shipping) in the High Commission with effect from 7-12-1978 and the period of his leave was regularised. He was also informed that his request for ex-India leave for two months had been rejected. The respondent, however, did not return to Delhi nor did he join duty.
(3.) Under a memorandum dated 9th of June, 1981 the President proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. A statement of imputations of misconduct was annexed to the memorandum and the respondent was directed to submit a written statement of his defence and state whether he desired to be heard in person. The articles of charges were to the following effect:- "The said Shri B. Dev who is a permanent Assistant Director (Gr. I) in DGS and D, and is officiating as Dy. Director from 27-12-1967 onwards, committed grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e. from 10-2-1979 to date and by continuously disobeying the Government orders issued to him for joining duty. His continued unauthorised absence from duty for such a long time and disobeying of Government orders tantamount (sic) to lack of devotion to duty, and to a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. 2. Shri B. Dev has thus violated the provision of clauses (ii) and (iii) of Rule 3 (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and rendered himself liable to disciplinary action under CCS (CCandA) Rules, 1965." A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge was also annexed. These were forwarded to the High Commission at London for service on the respondent. The First Secretary, High Commission of India in London was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Although the charges were served on the respondent and the Inquiry Officer notified to the respondent the date of the proceeding against the respondent, he chose not to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite several reminders. Ultimately an ex parte hearing was held on 4-1-1983. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18-1-1983 holding that the charges framed against the respondent of having committed a grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 10-2-1979 till 30-11-1981, the date on which he was to superannuate from government service, and thereby violating clauses (ii) and (iii) of Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, had been proved. The Inquiry Officer observed that the conduct of the respondent was deliberate and there was no mitigating circumstance in his favour. The respondent had used his tenure at the High Commission for enabling himself to stay permanently in England. He had purchased a house in London almost at the beginning of his tenure there and his motive for overstaying was clear; and in the circumstances exemplary punishment was called for.;