- (1.) The petitioner in this WPCT under art. 226 of the Constitution of India dated December 10, 2012 is questioning an order of the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated March 30, 2012 dismissing his OA No. 1874 of 2009. The petitioner was working in ESIC as a UDC. By a charge-sheet dated May 7, 2005 (WPCT p. 39) his disciplinary authority initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Services) Regulations, 1959. The allegation was that he had. unauthorizedly absented himself from office from August 16, 2002 to August 31, 2003.
(2.) The petitioner participated in the proceedings. He took the plea that he had been prevented from attending office by the Branch Manager thereof. Before the inquiry officer he said that he had attended office on August 17, 2002; but that the Branch Manager did not permit him to work saying that he was a missing man. In proof of the plea he produced a copy of a representation dated August 27, 2003 (WPCT p. 31), he made to the Regional Director.
(3.) The relevant part of the representation dated August 27, 2003 is quoted below:-- I am not un-authorised absence. I was told by the Local Office Kanthalpara that you are a missing man you can not be allowed to put signature in the Attendance Register. You have to vacate the missing Diary at first then you come to office. It is very strange and marvellous. I am physically present-I am declared missing. For the same I lodged a complain against the local office in the Naihati P.S. Vide GDE No. 2753 dt. 17.8.02. For the missing Diary, I cannot be joined the service. For my un-authorised absence the office is solely responsible.;