AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this petition is made to the punishment order dated 19.07.2010, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.11.2011.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had joined the service in the year 1989 as Clerk cum Typist and after about 20 years of service, he is compulsorily retired from the service. It is submitted that imputation against the petitioner was that he used to come to the office in drunk condition and he was misbehaving with his colleagues and superiors, however it was not right. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the averments in the petition and has submitted that the impugned punishment order be set aside.
On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that not only the charge against the petitioner was proved by his own admission, there was material on record to substantiate the charge. It is submitted that the petitioner was habitual of committing such misconduct. It is submitted that even prior to the incident which led to the punishment, the petitioner was punished for such misconduct. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the following decisions. (i) Dalvalsab Husainsab Mulla Vs. North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation - (2013) 10 SCC 185.
(ii) Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu - (2008) 5 SCC 569.
(iii) Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B.Narawade - (2005) 3 SCC 134.
(iv) Biecco Lawrie Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal - (2009) 10 SCC 32.
(v) L.K.Verma Vs. HMT Ltd - (2006) 2 SCC 269.
(vi) Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Girdharilal Yadav - (2004) 6 SCC 325.
(vii) Central Bank of India Ltd., Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee - (1968) 1 SCR 251.
Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that the charge against the petitioner was that he used to come to the office in drunk condition. He used to misbehave with his colleagues, so also with his superior. On being asked to explain this, the petitioner had even accepted the charge against him, calling it to be his mistake, with the undertaking that the same will not be repeated by him. This admission is on record. There is material on record which fortifies the stand of the respondent Authorities that he was habitual of committing such misconduct. On the face of this material, this Court finds that the action of the Disciplinary Authority of ordering compulsory retirement of the petitioner need not be interfered with. This petition therefore needs to be dismissed. Since the case of the respondent Authorities is accepted on facts, the Authorities relied by learned advocate for the respondent are not discussed.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.