PHULESWAR PRASAD VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has a chequered history of litigation. In order to understand the' grievance of the applicant it is necessary to state very briefly the background facts.

(2.) The applicant joined service under the Eastern Railway as Clerk, Gr. II on 8.9.1956. After passing departmental examination, he was promoted to the post of Clerk, Gr. 1 and posted in the office of the Chief Accounts Officer at Fairle Place with effect from 11.5.1959 and was confirmed w.e.f. 10.10.63. The applicant went on leave from 7.10.1970 and left for his home town in Bihar during the Puja holidays. It is alleged that the applicant had been suffering from piles and hence he could not join his duties after the Puja holidays, and reported sick. It is his case that from his native place he had been sending leave applications with medical certificate and in the absentee statement issued by the office, against his name a remark "Reported sick" was shown. It is stated that in October, 1972 the applicant was declared fit by the B.R. Singh Railway Hospital and he joined his duty. Again he went on leave to his home state during the Puja vacation of October, 1972 and did not join thereafter. However, the respondent's case is that after 7.10.70, the applicant did not join his duty and it is not a fact that he was ever declared fit by the B.R. Singh Hospital during October, 1972. It is their specific case that the applicant after 7.10.70 did not report for duty nor did he send any leave application alongwith medical certificate granted by a Railway medical doctor as per rules whereas the applicant claims that he duly sent such leave applications with medical certificates. Subsequently in March, 1985 the applicant claims to have sent a representation to permit him to join his duty after having being declared fit. However, it is alleged that he was not allowed to join. Thereafter, again the applicant tried to join in the year 1987, but he was not allowed to join. The applicant claims that from time to time thereafter he tried to join his duties, but he was not allowed to do so. The respondents, however, deny that the applicant had ever sent any application in 1985. It is admitted that only 1987 that the applicant submitted a representation to allow him to join with a fit certificate issued by a private medical practitioner and not by any railway doctor as required under the rules. In any event, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 19.8.1988 by hand and an enquiry was started against him. Initially, the applicant participated in the enquiry, but subsequently he withdrew and the enquiry was concluded ex pane. The Enquiry Officer in his report dt. 10.1.89 held that the charge against the applicant was proved. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 20.1.1989 and imposed upon the applicant the penalty of removal from services for his unauthorised absence from duty for about 18 years. Against the same, the applicant preferred an appeal, but the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal vide order dated 26.4.1989.

(3.) IT appears that thereafter the applicant has filed the instant O. A. before this Tribunal on 29.5.2001 challenging inter alia the charge sheet dated 19.8.1988, the disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry report, the removal order dated 20.1.1989 and the fresh appellate order dated 15.1.2001 and he has also prayed for direction to reinstate him in service with effect from the date of his removal from service i.e., with effect from 20.1.1989 and for paying all arrears and balance wages alongwith consequential benefits including pension etc.