A.P. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) Applicant, Shri Chandra Deo Singh filed a writ application in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, which by operation Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 came to this Tribunal by may of transfer for disposal.
(2.) The applicant was employed as a Machinist -Gr. I, under the Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C&W), Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai. He was the General Secretary of the All India Carriage & Wagon Staff Council. For his Trade Union Activities he incurred the displeasure of the concerned Authority On 25 -10 80 a major penalty charge -sheet was served on him by respondent No. 5. On getting that he submitted an explanation on 12 -11 -80. The applicant denied the allegation mentioned in the charge -sheet and demanded inspection of some documents. Without giving him inspection of the documents a notice was issued to him for holding an enquiry on 25 -11 -80. On 24 -11 -80 the applicant was advised to have inspection of the documents desired by him. On the next date the applicant made an application explaining his difficulty in attending the enquiry., His defence helper could not be engaged within time and as such he could not file his statement of defence. On 8 -12 -80 the applicant made another application for furnishing his some additional information for the purpose of preparing his defence. However, on 19 -12 -80, respondent No. 6 issued a direction on the applicant for submitting his statement of defence by 23 -12 -80 and in default the enquiry would be held ex parte. Again the applicant filed an application stating his inability to submit his written statement within the date fixed. By a notice issued on 25 -12 -80 the applicant was informed that the enquiry would be held on 29 -12 -80. On 29 -12 -80 the applicant fell ill and was under the treatment of a Railway Medical Officer and his illness continued upto 9 -1 -81 when he was declared fit to resume his duty. On 9 -1 -81 the applicant intimated respondent No. 6 that he would submit, his written statement some days after. On 16 -1 -81 the applicant while on two, days' leave went to his village home and fell ill. On that occasion he was under the treatment of the ADMO, Eastern Railway, Behri -on -Sone, who advised him to continue his treatment for 20 to 30 days. The applicant while under treatment came to know that by an Order issued on 17 -1 -81 by respondent No, 4 he had been removed from service with effect from that date. Against that penalty he preferred an appeal addressed to respondent No. 3. Without getting any reply from respondent No. 3, he again preferred an appeal to respondent No. 2. Not getting any reply even from him the applicant filed the instant application before the High Court at Calcutta. The applicant has challenged the enquiry proceeding on the ground that the charge -sheet was issued by an Authority not competent to do so. He has also challenged the enquiry proceeding on the ground that reasonable opportunities to defend his case were not given to him. The applicant has challenged the Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as not a reasoned Order and as an Order passed without application of mind. In filing the application the applicant has prayed for setting aside the Order of penalty imposed on him and for his reinstatement with all back wages and allowances.
(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that on some grave and serious allegation a charge -sheet was issued against the applicant. The applicant had. intentionally avoided his participation in. the enquiry by taking several flimsy grounds. He had been given adequate opportunities to defend his case. He had been given inspection of the documents required by him and had been allowed sufficient time to submit his defence and engage his defence assistant. Despite that on the, date of holding the enquiry the applicant had made himself scarce. So, the Enquiry Officer had no other alternative than to hold the enquiry and conclude it ex parte. Accepting his report the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of removal from service on him. In their reply the respondents have denied to have received any appeal preferred by the applicant.;