Saroop Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—The instant petition by unsuccessful applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity ''the Tribunal'') is directed against order dated 04.12.2007 and also order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P-3 and P-4). The Tribunal has passed order on 04.12.2007 dismissing the O.A. on merit as well as for non prosecution. However, on 04.01.2008 an application seeking restoration of the original application was allowed and the OA was dismissed on merit. The instant petition is also directed against that order.

The Tribunal has categorically found that on 31.08.2007 article of charges was issued to the Petitioner on the ground that he remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave/ information to the Respondent on 01.05.2004 at 12:20 P.M. He continued to be absent without any sanctioned leave. On 02.06.2004 a registered letter was sent at his known address with a direction that he was being treated absent from duty w.e.f.01.05.2004. He was directed to join his duty immediately failing which departmental action was to be initiated against him as per the Rules. It was also clarified that in case he was sick then he was to appear before the PMO/CMO concerned and produce medical certificate. The reminder was sent on 07.07.2004 but all in vain. Accordingly, he was charged for absence from duty without securing sanctioned leave i.e. 01.05.2004, which was considered to be grave misconduct. His absence was proved in a regular departmental enquiry.

It was further found that the Petitioner has remained sent earlier on 27 occasions. The Petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.07.2005 (Annexure P-1) and his appeal was dismissed by the Home Secretary on 17.04.2006 (Annexure P-2). The aforesaid orders were challenged by the Petitioner before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 668/PB/2006. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the charges of absence from duty were proved with a further finding that the Petitioner had remained absent earlier on 27 occasions. After recording its prima facie opinion, the Tribunal held that ordinarily there is no interference in the quantum of punishment by the Court and the past record of the Petitioner further shows that the punishment of dismissal is commensurate to the charges proved against him. As no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Petitioner before the Tribunal, the OA was dismissed in default.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 898of 2007. The application was allowed and the OA was restored to its original number. However, the view of the Tribunal was that the charges of absence from duty stood proved and keeping in view the earlier absence on 27 occasions, it has refused to interfere with the order of dismissal.

Having heard learned Counsel; we are of the considered view that the Petitioner is a habitual absentee because on earlier 27 occasions he had remained absent. In respect of the period for which he was absent from duty, a regular departmental enquiry was also held in which charges were proved. Accordingly, he was dismissed from service on 13.07.2005 (Annexure P-1) and his appeal was also rejected on 17.04.2006 (Annexure P-2). In the absence of any accentuating circumstance or lacuna in holding of enquiry, it is not possible for us to tinker with the punishment inflicted upon the Petitioner. Even otherwise, the punishment is commensurate with the nature of charges proved. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order, which does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.