Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) AFTER being enrolled as a Conductor in the year 1973, the petitioner was working as a Booking Clerk at Rewari on 28.9.2002, when he claims to have fallen sick. The petitioner did not deposit the cash amounting to Rs.1121/ - and absented himself after sending an application for leave to the General Manager, Rewari. Once the petitioner remained absent for a period of 58 days, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. During the pendency of enquiry, which the petitioner intermediately joined, a notice of compulsory retirement was issued by the General Manager on 16.4.2004. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was served an order of dismissal from service on 24.5.2004. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 28.2.2005. He claims to have filed a mercy petition, which, according to the petitioner is still pending. He has now filed this writ petition to impugn the order of his dismissal as well as order rejecting his appeal against the order of dismissal.
(2.) THE primary plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that 30 years service rendered by the petitioner has been given go -bye while directing his dismissal, which has also deprived the petitioner of his right to pension and pensionary benefits. I have perused the pleadings made in the writ petition. The petitioner seeks sympathy rather than any relief on legal grounds. As per the petitioner, he suffered from jaundice and fell ill. This is advanced as a reason for which he could not deposit the Government cash amount of Rs.1121/ -. Subsequently, he had deposited the amount and the Government ticket box on 14.10.2002. The petitioner claims to have sent leave application, but still he was marked absent. He also claims that during this period his only son expired. This sent him in a deep shock, which, completely shattered him making him mentally upset. This reason has been explained by him to the General Manager also during the course of hearing when he appeared. Considering the complete conduct and continued non -cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed directing his dismissal from service.
(3.) WHILE ordering the dismissal, the service record of the petitioner was taken into account. He was warned 41 times. 26 times he was served with severe censure. His increments were stopped on 30 occasions, out of which 16 times was with cumulative effect and 14 times without cumulative effect. Total recovery effected from him in this way was Rs.16,420/ -. At the time of finalising the case and passing of the order, six cases of fraud, mis -utilisation/temporary embezzlement and willful absent were pending against the petitioner. Keeping in view all these factors, the impugned order was passed.;