Prashant Kore vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM

The Original application has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the charge sheet dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A/18) issued by respondent no. 4 for the period which has already been treated as dies non by the respondents.

Briefly, the case of the applicant as projected in the Original Application is that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of TOA (G) in the respondent department. While working at Narsinghpur, applicant took medical leave after duly informing the respondent authorities. Copies of medical certificates are annexed as Annexure A/2. Despite the same, the respondent authorities treated the period from 30.09.2007 to 07.09.2008 and 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2009 as dies non. Subsequently, the applicant was transferred from office of Telecom District Engineer, Rajgarh Beora to circle office Bhopal on 16.07.2012 (Annexure A/4). A charge sheet was issued to the applicant wherein the sole charge levelled against the applicant was that he remained absent from 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2011 without any information and without any leave application and due to it, the applicant violated the sub-Rule (18) of the Rule 5 of the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006. The impugned charge sheet was issued by the respondent no. 4 without any authority of law because the applicant has already been transferred to the Circle Office on 16.07.2012. Furthermore, the charge-sheet has been issued for the same period, which the respondents have already treated as dies non. On the one hand, the period in question was considered as dies non and on the other hand, the respondents have issued charge-sheet for unauthorized absence from duty. Therefore, the applicant has suffered from double jeopardy. Hence, this O.A..

The respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been submitted by the respondents that the applicant was absent from the duties without prior intimation/sanction from the competent authority. The applicant never supplied any medical certificate at the office of competent authority. It is evident from the bare perusal of the certificates that it bears no receipt from the office of the respondents. The SDOT Narsinghgarh by way of passing order Annexure A/3, treated the period of unauthorised absence from 30.09.2007 to 07.09.2008 and 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2009 as dies non with a view to giving an opportunity to the applicant to improve his working but the applicant continued in same manner and remained absent from the duties even thereafter. Thus, the charge sheet served for the unauthorized absence from duties from 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2011 and did not serve for the same period which has been treated dies non and as such there is no question of double jeopardy. The respondents further submitted that circle office Bhopal passed an transfer order dated 16.07.2012, but the applicant has not complied with the said transfrer order therefore it was kept in abeyance and not implemented due to his absence from duty. Thus, the applicant never joined at circle office Bhopal in view of the aforesaid transfer order. The correspondences from Circle Office Bhopal are annexed as Annexure R/1.

This Tribunal has considered the matter and perused the documents annexed herewith the Original Application.

The issue for consideration before us is whether the charge sheet issued to the applicant has followed the due process or suffers from malice.

It is clear that the applicant was absent from the office for the period from 30.09.2007 to 07.09.2008 and 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2009 and for which the he submitted that he had also produced medical certificates but the respondents claim that they did not receive it as it does not bear any receipt of the office. The period from 30.09.2007 to 07.09.2008 and 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2009 was also treated as dies non.

The charge sheet was issued to the applicant when he did not join the office even after his earlier period of leave was treated dies non. In the charge sheet the unauthorised absence was for the period from 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2011.

The main ground of the applicant is that charge sheet has been issued by the respondent no. 4 without any authority of law because the applicant has already been transferred to the Circle Office on 16.07.2012 and thereafter applicant has never been posted in the O/o Respondent no. 4. So, the respondent no. 4 has no authority to issue the charge sheet against the applicant. It is made clear that transfer of the applicant was done but the applicant did not join the said office and the transfer order could not be given effect to due to the absence of the applicant. Vide annexure R/1, it was made clear that the applicant was not working in their office so there is no question of incompetent authority issuing the impugned charge sheet as the applicant was treated to be working in the same office where he was working earlier. Hence, the charge sheet in question is in conformity of law issued by competent authority.

Regarding the contention of the applicant that he has been imposed double jeopardy as the respondents have issued the charge sheet for the same period for which he has already been treated dies non. This contention is not true because the dies non was effected for the period from 30.09.2007 to 07.09.2008 and 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2009. It is an administrative decision of an employer to adjust the period of leave when the employee is not having leaves in his leave account. The charge sheet has been issued to the applicant for the period from 04.10.2008 to 05.08.2011 which is part of the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents against the applicant. These two cannot be clubbed together as a part of disciplinary proceedings. The apprehension of the applicant that he is being punished for the same act twice is not true as the issuance of charge sheet by the employer is part of the disciplinary proceedings and treating the applicant’s unauthorised absence as dies non is not the part of disciplinary proceedings.

In the result, in view of the observations made above, this Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.