- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the punishment order Ex. 3, dated 4.9.1991, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him, and the period of his absence from duty was ordered to be treated as dies non, and has claimed for reinstatement, continuity of service, and back wages.
(2.) The averments of the writ petition are, that the petitioner was appointed on 17.7.1961, in the Mechanised Farm, and later on his services were transferred to State Farm Corporation of India, which came into existence w.e.f. 1.8.1969, and was working as Electrician under respondent no.2. It is alleged, that while so working he was served with a charge-sheet, vide memorandum dt. 28th Oct/04 Nov 86, and the charge framed was, that while functioning as Electrician, during the year 1978, failed to obey the transfer order, to the Central State Farm, Kokilabari, and further absented himself from duty unauthorisedly, w.e.f. 28.7.1978. Further, he did not obey the order No. SFCI/1- 3/75-Estt. Dated 4.9.1981, of SFCI Hqrs. New Delhi, passed after award of the Labour Court dated 1.4.1981, and thereby committed gross misconduct. The details of the imputations were, that the petitioner was transferred to Central State Farm, Kokilabari, in the same capacity, with immediate effect, vide order dt. 6.4.1976, his name was struck off from the pay rolls of the present farm w.e.f. 28.7.1978. As per the information, received from the C.S.F. Kokilabari, the petitioner did not report, and thereby committed gross misconduct, and disobedience of the order, and absented since 28.7.1978. The petitioner alleges to have submitted reply to the charge-sheet, that he was transferred to Kokila bari, Assam, and then was posted at Central Sate Farm Bahraich. Before the transfer, he was reinstated by the Labour Court, vide award dt. 20.5.1975, and vide another award, the respondent was directed by the Labour Court, that the petitioner be posted in the nearest Central State Farm. According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 served a show cause notice dt. 27.10.1990, as to why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed. The petitioner submitted reply, contending, that the transfer was challenged before the Labour Court Bikaner, and the Labour Court directed to transfer the petitioner, to the nearest place, and the petitioner gave option for Ladhuwal or Suratgarh, but he was not transferred to nearest place.
(3.) He also contended, that the charges were proved without oral evidence, and the charges related to transfer to Kokilabari, and disobeying the order dt. 4.9.1981. It was contended, that after the award of the Labour Court, the charge relating to disobeying the transfer order to Kokilabari, and absenting from duty, is illegal. A typed copy of the said reply is produced as Ex.2. Then, vide Ex. 3, the petitioner was compulsorily retired as above. The copy of the enquiry report has been produced as Ex. 5. The petitioner has then alleged to have submitted appeal/petition, and reminders, against Ex.-3, contending, that Staff Regulation do not provide a minor and major misconduct, the show cause notice was not showing the alleged period of absence, and was treated as dies non, Staff Regulation are not applicable, and so on. With these averments, the order is challenged, on the ground, that the Staff Regulation are not applicable to the petitioner, and that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied before passing of the order Ex.3, that the termination order is not speaking order, the reply Ex. 2 has not been considered, the enquiry officer proved the charges without statement of oral witnesses, and when the charge sheet itself reveals that after award of the Labour Court dt. 1.4.1981, fresh order of transfer was passed, canceling the transfer to Kokilabari, and transferring the petitioner to Bahraich, then period of absence from 28.7.78 to 4.9.81 cannot be treated as absence from duty. Other ground taken is, that the enquiry officer himself found, that some of the points like posting at far away place, seems to be reasonable, because of prevailing conditions in Assam, illness of his wife, and later on death, small children, and there being nobody to look after, and as such it was difficult to go to Assam, and this plea seems to be genuine. The charged official requested the management many a times for charge of his posting station, in view of the problems, but in vain. It is contended, that on the findings of the enquiry officer, it cannot be said, that the petitioner remained absent from duty, and the punishment is alleged to have been imposed to harass him.;