S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND D.K.SINHA JJ. - (1.) THE appellant was proceeded against departmentally and charge -sheeted for the charges of habitual unauthorized absence from duty and for tampering with the attendance register. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after giving opportunity to the appellant, held the charges of habitual unauthorized absence from duty as the other charge proved. After notice to the appellant, the Senior Deputy General Manager (I/C), F.F.P., M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranehi, by order dated 21st May, 1997 removed the appellant from service. The Chairman -cum - Managing Director, M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranehi. also rejected the appeal, as was preferred by the appellant, by the impugned order dated 23rd May. 2003 and affirmed the order of removal.
(2.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the appellant, the impugned order of punishment has been passed without giving proper opportunity to the appellant and without following the direction, given by the Court earlier on 14th March, 2002 in W.P. (S) No. 5007 of 2001. The said case was filed by the appellant against the order of removal on one of the grounds that the punishment was not commensurate to the gravity of charges. The case was remanded by the learned Single Judge on 14th March, 2002 to reconsider the entire aspects, including the illness of the appellant and the mental state of his wife, as was pleaded by the appellant in the said case. Against the said order dated 14th March, 2002 the Management of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., Ranchi, preferred L.P.A. No. 298 of 2002, wherein, the Court did not choose to interfere with the order of remand, as the authorities were only to consider the question "whether the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the charges". The appellate authority, thereafter, considered the aforesaid issue and upheld the order of removal. After the appellate order, when the appellant preferred the subsequent writ petition, in question, wherein, the impugned order has been passed on 14th December, 2004, the learned Single Judge having gone through the records; gravity of charges and the order of punishment, came to a definite opinion that the order of removal was commensurate to the gravity of charges. It was noticed that the order of punishment was passed after giving opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge for coming to the conclusion whether the punishment was commensurate to the gravity of charges or not, noticed the relevant fact that the appellant was found in the habit of absenting himself unauthorizedly from duty without informing his superior/competent authority since 1993. A departmental proceeding was also earlier initiated vide Memorandum of Charges dated 20th March. 1996 for similar allegation. He was found absent from duty with effect from 29th January. 1996 onwards and even after, specific direction, given on 16th February 1996. he did not report to the duty. Though he was absent from duty, he fraudulently marked himself present by manipulating the attendance register for which another charge was issued on 31st May, 1996 for tampering with the attendance register. The documents to suggest that the wife of the appellant was suffering from mental disease and was under treatment since 1994 at Kolkata. were also disbelieved by the learned Single Judge.;