PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THERE appears to be a checkered history of the present case. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cleaner in the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13. 8. 1974. He was promoted on the post of Helper vide order dated 21. 8. 1978. While working as Cleaner and Helper in the Work-shop of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had continuously remained in contact with the diesel/lubricated oil for cleaning/repairing the vehicles. With the continuous contact of lubricants, the petitioner got his hands and feet infected. In view of serious infection on both the hands and the feet, the petitioner could not attend his duties regularly and had to undergo treatment in ESI Hospital.
(2.) IT was because of his absence from duties, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 30. 9. 1983. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority, while giving him a warning, ordered his reinstatement vide order dated 11. 4. 1984. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 25. 1. 1988 for remaining absent from duty without leave for the period mentioned therein Though, an enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 27. 2. 1988, no further proceedings were ever drawn in regard to the charge sheet dated 25. 1. 1988. Thereafter, another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 1995 for remaining absent from duty. After holding an enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report, which has been placed on record as Annexure-11. The enquiry officer though held that the charge of absence is proved, however, observed that absence was justified in view of the physical condition of the petitioner, which was seen by the enquiry officer himself. The enquiry officer further observed that fingers of both the hands of the petitioner got damaged due to contact of diesel in the Work-shop and that the condition of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Thus, the enquiry officer recommended that leave for the period in question should be sanctioned to the petitioner either on medical grounds or even without pay. Accepting the above enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority exonerated the petitioner vide order dated 30. 11. 1995. It was only because of the physical condition of the petitioner that the place of work of the petitioner was also changed from the Work-shop to the Printing Division of the Head- office at Jaipur vide order dated 13. 3. 1997. The petitioner continued to work at the new place of posting without any further complaint. In the meanwhile, entire period of absence from the year 1978 till 31. 12. 1996 was regularised vide order dated 22. 3. 2001. The period of absence was not counted for the purpose of annual grade increments and petitioner was also issued a warning to be careful in future. Strangely enough, the Executive Manager (Bus Body) Head- quarters, Jaipur was appointed as the Disciplinary Authority so far as charge sheet issued to the petitioner way back on 25. 1. 1988 vide order dated 27. 4. 2001. After receiving the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 3. 5. 2001 and, thereafter, punishment of dismissal was imposed vide order dated 26. 7. 2001 on the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet issued on 25. 1. 1988. The order of dismissal dated 26. 7. 2001 is under challenge in the present writ petition. After having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record.
(3.) THERE is no explanation, whatsoever, as to why the enquiry was not proceeded with in regard to charge sheet dated 25. 1. 1988 when the enquiry officer had already been appointed vide order dated 27. 2. 1988. The observations and recommendations made by the enquiry officer way back in the year 1995 have also not been controverted so far. Once having regularised the entire period of absence from 1978 till December, 1996 vide order dated 22. 3. 2001 with a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future, I find no justification, whatsoever, for proceeding with the enquiry in regard to the charge sheet issued way back on 25. 1. 1988 and imposing a punishment of dismissal for remaining absence for the period from January, 1987 to December, 1987. When the entire period prior and post to the above period had been regularised by the same authority with a warning to the petitioner, there is no justification in imposing an extreme punishment of dismissal thereafter. THERE is no dispute that in view of the physical condition of the petitioner, place of posting was changed to the Printing Division of the respondent Corporation vide order dated 13. 3. 1997 and nothing has been placed on record to show any complaint against the petitioner after joining his duties in the Printing Division after March, 1997. After having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the punishment imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet issued 13 years back cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, mores in view of exoneration in the year 1995 and further entire period been regularised vide order dated 22. 3. 2001. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26. 7. 2001 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for reinstatement from the date of this order. Maintaining the continuity of service, the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary from the date of termination till passing of this order. It is further made clear that the period of absence as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 25. 1. 1988 shall be regularised in the same manner the other period has been regularised by the respondent Corporation vide order dated 22. 3. 2001. There will be no order as to costs. . ;