Abdul Kadir vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th August, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 862 of 2007 titled Abdul Kadir v. Union of India through General Manager and Ors. dismissing his petition filed against the order of his removal from service passed by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Moradabad on 25th January, 2006 which was confirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional authority on account of petitioner''s unauthorized absence from 2nd September, 2005.

The petitioner was serving as Technician Welder II and a chargesheet dated 27th October, 2005 was issued to him on account of his unauthorized absence from 2nd September, 2005 contending inter alia that he was habituated to abstaining from duty unauthorisedly and consequently he was upsetting the maintenance of railway services. It was alleged that despite opportunities given to him to improve his performance, no improvement was noted.

On inquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved. A show cause notice was issued by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Moradabad and after considering his oral pleas and contentions, order of removal dated 25th January, 2006 was passed. An Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 22nd August, 2006 noticing that petitioner had been punished twice earlier for unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 225 days in 2003; 184 days in 2004 and 130 days in 2005 which was not denied by the petitioner. The revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, Northern Railway, New Delhi, which was also dismissed.

The Tribunal has considered the pleas and contentions of the petitioner and noted that the petitioner was absent from 21st September, 2005 up to 17th December, 2005. Though there was a discrepancy as to whether he reported on 16th December, 2005 or 17th December, 2005, it was held that it could not be denied that the petitioner had abstained from work for 86 days unauthorizedly even if it is accepted that he reported on 16th December, 2005.

The Tribunal has also considered two PMCs dated 21st September, 2005 and 15th December, 2005 produced by the petitioner which only shows that he was suffering from backache with Neuritis and weakness. The petitioner, however, did not inform orally or by any letter to the respondents about his indisposition during the said period prior to 16th December, 2005.

It has also been considered that from the certificates produced by the petitioner, it cannot be held that he had such a debilitating condition which would have prevented him from performing his work and joining the duties especially since the place of work of the petitioner was only about 5 to 6 kilometers from his residence.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the daughter of the petitioner had died and consequently he was not able to attend to his work. The period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner is from 21st September, 2005 to 16th December, 2005 whereas his daughter had died almost a year after, i.e., on 17th October, 2006 and, therefore, it cannot be held that on account of the demise of petitioner''s daughter he could not join the office.

The Tribunal has also noted that the petitioner had not submitted reply to show cause notice given to him and has relied on Shyamapada Bauri v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. (2007) 4 SLR 175. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the inquiry was completed within one day. The similar plea was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal. It has been noted that when the petitioner appeared he was asked to nominate his defense assistance, however, petitioner opted not to engage defense assistance and he opted to defend himself. It was admitted by the petitioner that he did not give any intimation to his office about his absence from 2nd September, 2005 nor he had applied for leave nor he had submitted any application. The petitioner rather accepted charges leveled against him. Since the petitioner had admitted the charges against him, conclusion of the inquiry on the same day cannot be held to be in violation of principle of natural justice.

In the circumstances, the inference of the Tribunal based on the inquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was callous, indifferent and apathetic towards his duty and he was in the habit of abstaining from duty for prolonged period cannot be faulted on any of the grounds as raised by the petitioner.

There are no grounds to interfere in the facts and circumstances with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.