KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant/writ -petitioner challenging the order, dated 6 February 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 15435 (W) of 2006. The appellant/writ -petitioner an employee in the post of Under Ground Loader in the respondent No.1, i.e., Eastern Coalfields, Ltd., was served with chargesheet, dated 24 September 2005 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him alleging that he was unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty from 5 September, 2005. The enquiry proceedings were held and after examining the witnesses, the enquiry officer concluded the same upon recording his finding that the charge has been established. Thereafter second show -cause notice, dated 03/07 November 2005 was issued, to which the appellant submitted a reply with the prayer for permission to join his duty and further stating that he djd not attend his duty from 5 September 2005 to 9 October 2005 due to right leg fracture. He further stated in the reply to the second show -cause notice that this type of mistake would not recur in future. The respondent disciplinary authority on perusal of the second show -cause notice, passed the order of termination, dated 7 January 2006. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination, the appellant herein filed the writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 15435 (W) of 2006.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that on the facts of the case he was unable to hold that the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that while considering the question of punishment, the disciplinary authority was quite empowered to consider the past conduct of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge was unable to agree with the counsel of the writ -petitioner that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct. Sri Nirmalendu Ganguly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that in the charge sheet there was no mention of the alleged habitual absenteeism and the charge sheet was only issued for unauthorised absence with effect from 5 September 2005. It is contended that during the enquiry proceeding P.W.2 admitted that the appellant went to the hospital for his illness where from he was referred to C.H. Kalla (Central Hospital Kalla). It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the second show -cause notice there was no reference to the earlier proceedings and punishment awarded on each such occasion regarding the alleged habitual absenteeism and, as such, the punishment of termination of service was shockingly disproportionate, especially when there was no mention of habitual absenteeism in the chargesheet. Learned counsel has referred to and relied on a decision reported (2005) I W.B.L.R. (Cal) 92 (Eastern Coalfields, Ltd. v. Indradeo Yadav and others.)
(3.) SRI R.N. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in the past the appellant remained absent for considerable period for which proceedings were drawn up on several occasions and punishment was awarded on each such occasions, but, inspite of that the appellant did not mend himself and again remained absent with effect from 5 September 2005 for which a proceeding was drawn up and upon conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination of service considering the past conduct in view of the Standing Order 28.7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the total period of absence in the present occasion was for 22 days. Sri Mazumdar has referred to and relied on the decisions reported in 2003 (3) L.L.N. 1061 (General Manager, Eastern Coalfields, Ltd. and another v. Rajender Singh (alias) Rajendra Singh and others) and 1990 -I L.L.J. 298 (Management of Madras Fertilizers, Ltd. v. Presiding Officers and others).;