- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This writ petition is against the order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O. A No. 18/2010(R). whereby the writ petitioner's Original Application challenging the appellate order dated 4th June, 2008 and the order of punishment and removal order dated 6th June, 2007 had been dismissed.
(3.) Learned counsel for writ petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner, a class IV employee, was served with a show cause notice under Article 81(d)(3) of the Education Code, levelling allegation that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 2nd April, 2007 to 5th May, 2007 without sanction of leave and therefore, the petitioner was informed as to why the conduct of the petitioner may not be treated to be petitioner's voluntarily leaving the service. Finding this notice dated 11th May, 2007, the petitioner gave reply on 17th May, 2007, stating therein that because of his own sickness as well as sickness of his wife and son, he could not attend duties and he submitted an application for grant of extra ordinary leave (E. O. L)from 2nd April, 2007. The said application was sent through U. P. C. However, in spite of his application, he received two letters from the respondents, details of which have been given in reply submitted by the petitioner dated 17th May, 2007. In reference to the above letters including show cause notice dated 11th May, 2007, the petitioner submitted that still he is sick and therefore, he is not in a position to join duties. The petitioner in his letter itself further prayed for sanction of E. O. L. The petitioner's representation against show cause noticecumapplication for grant of E. O. L were not considered, which is apparent from the punishment order dated 6th June, 2007, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner did not submit his representation against the show cause notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the appellate authority proceeded to consider the absence of the petitioner pertaining to the period from 5th December, 2006 to 11th January, 2007 and from 24th January, 2007 to 11th March, 2007, which were condoned by the Department and he was punished. It is submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner that he was a habitual absentee and in fact, earlier two absence were not habitual absence when his leaves were regularized. So far as the appellate order is concerned, it is apparent from the appellate order that the petitioner's plea of his sickness has not been considered, nor his prayer for grant of extra ordinary leave was considered, which if would have been considered and the petitioner would have been granted E. O. L, in that situation the order of punishment could not have been passed.;