PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 07.05.2003 whereby the petitioner has been removed from services and for quashing order of appellate authority by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and for quashing letter dated 27.08.2003, by which, the respondent intimated the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and also direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in services with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that previously the petitioner was in the service of Centre for Water Resources Studies, Patna and pursuant to the advertisement issued in May, 1997 for the post of Deputy Manager (System Analyst), the petitioner applied and after going through the selection process, he joined the respondent corporation on 03.02.1998. While continuing as such, memo of charges dated 20.03.2002 was served upon the petitioner. Relevant portion of Statement of Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner, is quoted herein below: 1. That the attendance of the said Sri Ranjan from the year 2000 onwards has been irregular in so much as he committed in disciplined acts of remaining absent without prior sanction of leave, leaving the Headquarters without permission and overstaying the sanctioned leave. 2. That said Sri Ranjan has overstayed the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days after expiry of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) from 22.02.2001 to 03.03.2001 by not reporting for his duties immediately on expiry of the sanctioned leave being granted.
(3.) That said Shri Ranjan, despite being directed to resume duty vide letter No. HEC/GM/CM/SYSTEMS/02-72 dated 7.3.2002, failed to do so. Basing on the aforesaid allegation, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 25 of the HEC Employee's Conduct Disciplinary & Appeal Rule, 1981. In the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be guilty of all the charges and accordingly, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 07.05.2003. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.08.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period spent on leave by the petitioner was subsequently sanctioned by the respondents-Management in the form of C.L., E.L, E.D.L and medical leaves and while sanctioning the respective leave no question was raised, thereby, the period of leave was regularized and subsequently serving of memo of charge, which led to passing of impugned orders by the respondent- Management is highly illegal. It has further been submitted that initially the petitioner went on sanctioned leave for ten days on 22.02.2001, but, due to illness of his father, he could not report for duty and after attending his ailing father, the petitioner reported for duty on 25.06.2001 but he was not allowed to do so and he was placed under suspension and after considerable period of time, vide letter dated 11.03.2002 he was directed to join his duty before 13.03.2002 but due to ill fate of the petitioner, since he was suffering from viral fever, he submitted his joining report on 01.04.2002. However, in the meantime, disciplinary proceeding was initiated, which led to passing of impugned orders.;