- (1.) In the instant writ petition the petitioner has questioned the Inquiring officer's report dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure P-8), removal order dated 16.01.2009 (Annexure P-11), Appellate order dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P-12) and the order dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure P15). The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the respondent Department. He was charge-sheeted on 16.8.2008 for over staying from 08.02.2008 (forenoon) and remained absent from duty without the permission of any competent authority. Charge-sheet was sent to the petitioner to a wrong address. Consequently, the same was not served before the commencement of the inquiry. The respondents proceeded with the inquiry. During pendency of the enquiry on 3.12.2008, petitioner was asked to file statement and he had filed statement along with medical certificate. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority forwarded copy of the Inquiring Officer's report along with show cause notice. The disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service on the petitioner on 16.1.2009. Aggrieved by the order of the removal, he preferred an appeal and revision which were rejected on 22.4.2009 and 23.11.2009 respectively. Hence this petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had applied leave for the period from 02.02.2008 to 07.02.2008. During leave period the petitioner's grand-father and his sister died in motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, petitioner himself fell ill. Initially he took treatment from Government Hospital and later with Private doctor. Thus, he was compelled to remain absent from 08.02.2008 till 24.11.2008. He reported back to duty on 25.11.2008. He was assigned duty on 2.12.2008. Remaining unauthorized absence for the above period was due to genuine reason that petitioner's grand-father and sister died in motor vehicle accident. He was mentally ill for which he was taking treatment. In this regard, he had produced medical certificate before the Inquiring Officer. The Inquiring Officer failed to consider and appreciate mental stress of the petitioner due to death of his grand-father and sister in a motor accident and the medical certificate. Inquiring Officer out rightly rejected on the sole ground that medical certificate has been issued by a private Doctor. Without summoning the author of medical certificate about genuineness of the medical certificate, it has been rejected and held that the charge is proved. While initiating enquiry proceedings charge-sheet is to be served on the employee. If the same is not served amounts to denial of opportunity to meet charge, it was duty of the disciplinary authority to notify in the newspaper if the charge-memo is not served through post. Here is a case where charge-sheet has been addressed to a wrong place to that extent postal department returned with remarks which has been received by the disciplinary authority. In view of these facts and circumstances, it was duty of the disciplinary authority to publish in the newspaper about chargesheeting the petitioner. Without resorting to the aforesaid action, the Inquiring Officer was appointed. Inquiry was proceeded and the petitioner has been punished by imposing penalty of removal from service. It was further contended that the respondents while imposing the penalty of removal from service have considered the past events which is not part and parcel of charge-sheet. Extraneous material has been taken into consideration for the purpose of imposing penalty of removal from service. The disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority have not taken into consideration whether enquiry proceedings are in accordance with the prescribed procedure or not. Therefore, decision of the appellate and revisional authority are arbitrary.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge-sheet was sent and post was returned stating that addressee is not available. Therefore, disciplinary authority proceeded for appointing Inquiry Officer to hold ex-parte enquiry. Inquiring Officer has rightly rejected the medical certificate produced by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner should have taken treatment with the Government hospital. Even though, the petitioner was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala but the petitioner failed to take treatment in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Thus, the Inquiring Officer rejected the medical certificate. It is further contended that it is an admitted fact that petitioner remained absent after expiry of leave period. If an employee remained unauthorized absent for a longer period, punishment of removal would be ideal. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority.;