- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against the order of dismissal, passed by the respondents at Annexure-9 to the memo of petition dated 30.5.1998. After getting this termination letter, which is of the year 1998, a petition has been preferred in February, 2009.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has remained absent for some period, and only because of this absence, the services of the present petitioner has been terminated without appreciating the reasons of the absence that is because of the family circumstance of the present petitioner. Thus the quantum of the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the nature of the misconduct, and therefore, the order at Annexure-9 deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the charges levelled against the present petitioner has not been proved, and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the respondents, and therefore, also the order of termination of the service of the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has remained absent unauthorizedly without getting sanction for any leave with effect from 21.10.1994 onwards, and thereafter again the petitioner was given a warning letter dated 22.5.1995 for resuming duties within one week, but the petitioner deliberately came after one month for joining his duties and that too on the ground that the petitioner did not get railway reservation, and therefore, he had not resumed his duties. On the earlier occasion, the reasons advanced for long absentism of more than six months is a family circumstance, but nothing is stated as to what were those family circumstance, and therefore, chargesheet was issued and an inquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of being heard in the present case. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, it has been concluded that the charges levelled against the present petitioner has been proved and the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of termination of the services of the present petitioner vide order dated 30.5.1998 at Annexure-9 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that there is a gross delay in preferring this writ petition of approximately 11 (eleven) years. No reasonable reason has been stated in the memo of petition for explaining this delay of approximately eleven years in filing of this petition. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.;