S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING order dated 28.09.2012 the petitioner has approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was posted at M.G.M. Medical College and Hospital at Jamshedpur. He proceeded on leave for five days on 13.11.1998. He reported for duty on 14.11.2003 however, he was not permitted to join and therefore, he gave his joining in the headquarters however, when he tried to perform his duty he was not allowed to join there. On 08.07.2006, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge -memo. An enquiry was conducted into the matter in which the petitioner participated. A second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, penalty order dated 28.09.2012 has been passed terminating the service of the petitioner with effect from 13.11.1998. A counter affidavit has been, filed stating as under, 10. That it is further submitted that the joining of the petitioner was not allowed by the principle of MGM Medical College and Hospital, Jamshedpur. That thereafter he gave his joining application in the office of Principal Secretary, health Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on 14.11.2003. 11. That the aforesaid request of joining of the Petitioner was turned down. That in the year 2003 a Departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner i.e. vide resolution as contained in memo No. 197(2) dated 08.07.06. Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation to the charge, which was accordingly submitted by the petitioner along with supporting documents before conducting officer. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that the conducting officer set tight over the matter but surprisingly Petitioner in the month of February, 2007 received a letter as contained in memo No. 35(2) dated 12.02.07 issued by Special Secretary, Dept. of Health, Govt. of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder the Petitioner was held guilty since the charges were found to be true and proved. Accordingly the second show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner was once again given opportunity to put his defence if any. 18. That from the fact stated in the present writ petition itself it would be evident that the Petitioner was allowed leave for 5 days only [i.e. 13.11.1998 to 17.11.1998] and after expiry of his leave he remained unauthorizedly, absent, from his duty. According to the Petitioner himself he gave his joining on 14.11.2003, thus he remained absent for more than 5 years. Thus Rule 76 of the Service Code is applicable is applicable in the case of the Petitioner. As per the requirement of Rule 76(b) of the Service code, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and was conducted in accordance with law. Petitioner participated in the said departmental proceeding. There has been no violation of principal of natural justice. Petitioner himself did not produce his defense witness. Enquiry report was concluded and the charges were found to be true and proved by the conducting officer. Second show cause notice was given to the Petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report. Petitioner was again given opportunity to produce his defense, if any. Accordingly thereafter giving all opportunity to the Petitioner he was removed from service after following the prescribed procedure in accordance with law. The consequence of a proceeding under Rule 76(b) of the Service Code is removal from service, thus the contention of the Petitioner that the punishment imposed to him is not at all proportionate to the charges leveled against him is irrelevant and misconceived and fit to be rejected.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.;