- (1.) Heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
(2.) The petitioner, who is a night guard in the Civil Court at Farrukhabad, was charge-sheeted in relation to an incident dated 6A.2007 where certain unknown thieves attempted to fell Sandal trees inside the Campus of the Civil Court at Farrukhabad. The charge against the petitioner is that he was not present on his duty which resulted in such an incident. The defence taken by the petitioner is that as a matter of fact, he was in ailment and suffering from Piles and as a result of bleeding he had also been taken to the hospital, for which the medical certificates and the affidavit of the landlord, where the petitioner resides, were filed to substantiate the aforesaid plea of defence.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no evidence was led to the contrary to controvert the medical certificates issued or the aforesaid plea of the petitioner and consequently an inquiry report was submitted in favour of the petitioner on 16.5.2007. The same Enquiry Officer was directed by the District fudge to submit a fresh inquiry report and on the very next day, the Enquiry Officer changed his opinion overnight with a fresh report indicating that the petitioner had not afforded any plausible explanation with regard to his short leave absence, for which medical was being claimed. On the basis of the second inquiry report, the petitioner has been punished and his appeal filed against the same has been rejected by this Court on the Administrative side. Learned Counsel contends that the petitioner's absence was fully justified and he had proved his defence to the hilt by producing cogent evidence, which remains uncontroverted and as such the petitioner could not have been punished. For the same reason the appellate order is also being assailed.;