Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jag Ram Singh and the counsel for the respondent workman, Sri Sudhanshu Narain and I have perused the Award impugned dated 10.1.2011 in Adjudication Case No. 11 of 2006.
(2.) From the finding recorded by the Presiding Officer, it is evident that two charge sheets were given to the petitioner, Charge Sheet No. 309 dated 4.6.2002 and Charge Sheet No. 497 dated 31.1.2003. Charge Sheet No. 309 related to absence of the workman respondent no.1 w.e.f. 27.2.2001 to 2.4.2001, without prior permission besides several other periods of absence which have been detailed in the enquiry report filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. These periods of absence have been mentioned right from July 1992 to April 2001, most of these periods of absence are of only one or two days, the longest period of absence is from 27.2.2001 to 2.4.2001 only.
(3.) In the Award impugned, the Presiding Officer has found that proper notice of dates fixed by the enquiry officer were not given to the respondent - workman as he had sold out his house, and had also filed an affidavit in this regard in 2003 itself that he was currently living in Jyoti Bihar Colony, Saharanpur and the said address to be treated as new permanent address and all correspondence be undertaken on the said address. All notices that were sent to the petitioner was on his address mentioned in the earlier service record and not on his current address.;