SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of penalty order dated 31.12.2014 and the appellate order dated 31.10.2015, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 30.06.1990 as a constable. He proceeded on leave for 10 days on 7.11.2013. Letters dated 25.03.2014 and 25.06.2014 were sent at his home address still, he did not report for duty. When he did not resume his duty for a long time, he was suspended. He was directed to appear for medical examination for undergoing foundational course, however, he absconded and did not participate in the foundational course. Only on 15.7.2014, he gave his joining however, on 17.07.2014 again he absconded for two days without any information. By an order dated 19.09.2014, he was again directed to appear for medical examination for undergoing foundational course, however, again he did not appear and absconded from duty. Memo dated 24.09.2014 was issued in this regard and his salary was stopped.
(3.) In the above facts, the departmental proceeding proceeded in his absence. In the domestic enquiry, several documents were produced, and it was brought on record that the petitioner has suffered as many as 19 punishments. A notice dated 15.11.2014 was issued to the petitioner at his home address for his explanation and after submission of the enquiry report notice dated 19.11.2014 was again issued, however, he did not respond to the aforesaid notices. His appointment was on compassionate ground. He has been found a habitual absconder. Taking note of his conduct and findings recorded in the enquiry report on the charges framed against him, penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted upon him. Before the appellate authority, he took a plea that in the ex parte proceeding second show cause notice was not issued to him and he was not offered an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The appellate authority noticing the findings in the enquiry held that the departmental proceeding was conducted properly. The appellate authority agreed with the penalty of dismissal from service, while holding that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate. The plea taken by the petitioner in the present proceeding that no notice was issued to him is contrary to the findings recorded during the departmental enquiry that four notices were issued at his home address.;