JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) By way of this intra-Court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in CWP No. 986/2004 whereby, a learned single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition while declining to interfere in the orders imposing and maintaining major penalty of removal from service, as passed against him after departmental inquiry. The translated version of the charges against the petitioner-appellant in the departmental inquiry has been taken note of by the learned single Judge in the order impugned; and it appears appropriate to reproduce the same as under:--
"1. That on date 21-22/9/2001 signing on the outgoing batch at 19.45 o'clock on entry No. 40 of Rojnamcha of Company No. 56 Jodhpur, he was deputed in D.R.M. Office Beat. He, from duty beat, without any information and permission of Competent Officer, became absent unauthorizedly. His absence was marked in Chief Inspector Company Register at Sr. No. 336 at 22.15 o'clock and at entry No. 54 in rojnamcha of Company No. 56 at 22:50 o'clock on date 21/9/2001.
2. That on date 21-22/9/2001 after being absent from duty beat, he remained absent unauthorizedly up to 4/10/2001 for 13 days without any information and permission of Competent Officer, which is mark of indiscipline and carelessness.
3. That in the same sequence after serving duty from 5/10/2001 to 6/10/2001, after being off from B.C. Yard from 8.00 to 16.00 o'clock on date 6/10/2001, on date 7/10/2001 at 1.05 o'clock consuming liquor, stopping the Railway Canteen owner giving abuses inflicted inquiry on body by stone. A written report was lodged against you in Railway Police station and case No. 81/2001 under Section 143 Railway Act and Section 323, 341 of I.P.C. was registered against you, and you were arrested at 4.15 a.m. on date 7/10/2001. This act of yours is indecent and is against the image of the force. By this the image of the force has been tarnished."
(2.) It is borne out from the record that the petitioner-appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer in spite of several opportunities; and ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. However, after the Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte findings dated 06.12.2001, the appellant was afforded further opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority of making his representation/submissions; and he submitted the representation on 24.12.2001. The Disciplinary Authority, after a comprehensive examination of the inquiry proceedings as also the representation of the appellant, accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the charges of serious misconduct proved against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority, accordingly, proceeded to impose upon him the penalty of removal from service. The appeal as also the revision petition filed by the appellant were duly considered by the respective authorities and were rejected while upholding the penalty of removal from service.
(3.) Seeking to question the orders so passed, the basic contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant before the writ Court had been that he was denied proper opportunity to defend and the ex parte proceedings were not sustainable. The learned single Judge has referred to the record and has particularly referred to the findings of the Appellate Authority as under.--
"The appellant acknowledged receipt of the charge-sheet on 1.11.2001 and the DAR inquiry was entrusted to Shri A.K. Kullu, IPF/RPF/SCR/Jodhpur who afforded the appellant all reasonable opportunities to defend himself. It is however, observed that in spite of acknowledging the notices sent by the Inquiry Officer directing the appellant to attend the DAR inquiry, he failed to do so thereby compelling the former to finalise the proceedings ex parte. Thereafter a copy of the DAR findings was forwarded to the appellant for submitting his representation before passing final order by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his representation dated 21.12.2001 which was considered by Disciplinary Authority who inflicted upon him the punishment of removal from service.";
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.