V. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as peon on 14.2.77 in Varanasi Development Authority. He was confirmed on 26.3.90 w.e.f. 1.6.79. The petitioner absented from duty from 5.11.90 to 30.11.90 on the ground that his daughter suffered fracture in her hand. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 14.2.91. Enquiry Officer was appointed and in departmental disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry officer was of the opinion that balance salary during suspension period be forfeited and warning be Issued to the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer along with his recommendation was submitted to the punishing authority who issued show cause notice on 29.6.91. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the punishing authority dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 23.8.91. The petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of dismissal as well as the appellate order by means of this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri G. K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri AJal Kumar Dwivedi, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(3.) Sri G. K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the enquiry officer submitted a report to the respondent No. 2 that balance salary during the suspension period be forfeited and he be issued strong warning. In case the punishing authority proposed to take a different view contrary to the recommendations of enquiry officer, he ought recorded reasons for differing with the report of the enquiry officer and the reason ought to have been incorporated in the show cause notice dated 29.6.91 and communicated to the petitioner. The other argument of Sri G. K. Singh is that for absence of 25 days, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the punishment awarded to him is too harsh. Sri A. K. Dwivedt learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order of dismissal as well as appellate order on the ground that the absence from duty amounted to indiscipline and the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service and the dismissal order is not liable to be interfered with by the Court. He further argued that the punishing authority could take a different view disagreeing with the recommendation of enquiry officer and no reason was required to be recorded by the punishing authority nor it was required to be communicated to the petitioner.;