Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.4.1991 passed by respondent no.2, Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and the order dated 16.8.84 passed by respondent no.1, the Service Manager, UPSRTC, Ghaziabad Region, Ghaziabad (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Carpenter by respondent no.1 the Service Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghaziabad in 1978. He was issued a charge sheet for absence of 11 days i.e. from 1.8.1983 to 23.8.1983 in the month of September, 1983 to which he submitted reply inter alia, that he was absent due to illness of his wife. The petitioner thereafter was dismissed vide order dated 16.8.84 from service without holding any enquiry or show cause. He filed an appeal against the order of dismissal which too was dismissed vide order dated 9.4.86 by the appellate authority.
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 9.4.86 the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5513 of 1987 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 6.4.1987 setting aside the order of termination of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has served a copy of the judgment and order dated 6.4.87 passed by this Court on the respondents on 21.5.87 but they did not take any action despite the petitioner approaching again and again for his reinstatement in service. Notices dated 27.190 and 8.3.90 are said to have been sent by the petitioner through his Advocate for his reinstatement. When the notices sent also remained unresponded, the petitioner again sent a letter dated 25.3.1991 to respondent no.2 who then vide his letter dated 8.4.91 refused to grant relief of reinstatement to him on the ground that the order passed in writ petition no.5539 of 1987 is based on technical mistake and the State Government has issued an ordinance to rectify the same and it has been made into an Act the vires of which has also been up-held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was removed from service for charge of absenteeism from 1.9.1983 to 23.9.1983 and from October, 1983 to June, 1984 though by charge sheet dated 20/22.10.1983 he was only charge sheeted for absenteeism of 12 days in September,1983 and therefore, he could not be punished for any other misconduct than one which was levelled against him in the charge sheet in which enquiry has been held. It is further submitted that the petitioner remained absent due to the reason that he and his wife both fell ill, hence no punishment could have been imposed upon him as circumstances were beyond his control. It is stated that the maximum punishment for absence in these circumstances ought not to have been imposed on him neither any Enquiry Officer has been appointed nor any enquiry had been held against him; that alleged reports dated 1.5.1984 and 4.6.1984 of the Foreman said to have been shown or supplied to the petitioner is incorrect as respondent no.1 had obtained the signatures of the petitioner on a blank paper on the ground that it is needed for correcting the date of birth in the service record and the appeal filed against the dismissal order was dismissed without giving any reason. It is lastly submitted that in fact a humanitarian approach was required to be taken by the authorities looking into the nature of charge of misconduct of absenteeism as there was no deliberate default of the petitioner in not reporting for duty and that punishment awarded to him is highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. He also submits that the appeal has been dismissed without considering any of the grounds taken in the appeal and the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not deliberate but it was due to his wife's illness, which has never been denied by the respondents. It is stated that even the order of dismissal shows that the Service Manager directed for granting paid leave to the petitioner.;