SWAPNESWAR LENKA Vs. SECURITY OFFICER, EAST COAST RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this Writ application inter alia prays as follows:

(2.) ANNEXURE -1 is the Order Dated 22nd February 1991 intimating the Petitioner that he has been held guilty of the charges for remaining absent unauthorisedly without intimation & is deemed to have been removed from service w.e.f. 29th January, 1991, i.e. the date of pasting of the removal notice.

(3.) PETITIONER was appointed as a Constable in Railway Protection Force w.e.f. 13th May 1967 & was allotted No. 5463. He was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 4th July 1970 & was posted at Khurda Division. While discharging his duties he suffered from serious Neurological & Neurosurgical disorder, consequently he remained absent without intimation. After waiting for some time a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him & he was directed to submit his preliminary show cause. It appears though the said notice was received no show cause was filed by the Petitioner. Consequently, charges were framed alleging gross in disciplined & unauthorized absence. Sri B.N. Dutta, RPF Inspector, was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry & the Petitioner was called upon to show cause. The Enquiring Officer conducted the enquiry after granting adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case. He completed the enquiry & submitted his findings holding the Petitioner guilty of all the charges/The Disciplinary Authority after going through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, evidence on record & the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer recommended the matter to the higher authority, who was competent to impose major penalty. After considering all facts & circumstances & coming to the conclusion, that the Petitioner was unfit to be retained in the post, the authority removed the Petitioner from service w.e.f. 29th January 1991.. Being aggrieved by the said order the Petitioner approached this Court after five years in OJC No. 1360/1996. The said Writ application was disposed of on 25.4.1996 giving liberty to the Petitioner to prefer an appeal. Thereafter, it appears the Petitioner filed an appeal in the year 1996. The Appellate authority after due consideration of the charges & on being satisfied that the enquiry was conducted after granting adequate opportunity to the Petitioner & the fact that the appeal was preferred more than four & half years after the order of removal was passed & that the same was not accompanied by any petition under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to condone the delay, dismissed the appeal on 6.12.1995. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court.