AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
CM 1683/2012
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 760/2012 & CM 1682/2012
This is the second round before this High Court insofar as the present matter is concerned. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C) 8103/2010, which was directed against the order dated 02.11.2010 in OA 2403/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.12.2010, whereby the petitioner was granted liberty to move a review application before the Tribunal inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, certain documents had not been looked into by the Tribunal.
Consequent thereupon, the petitioner filed a review application before the Tribunal being RA 337/2010, which was also disposed of by an order dated 03.01.2012. In the review order, the Tribunal noted that the documents which the petitioner was seeking to rely upon at the review stage, were not really relevant or germane to the issue. It is in these circumstances that the review application was also dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in which he has challenged both the original order dated 02.11.2010 passed in OA 2403/2009 as well as the order dated 03.01.2012 passed in RA 337/2010.
The essential grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was against the dismissal order dated 15.12.2008, which has been upheld by the appellate authority by virtue of its order dated 01.05.2009. The ground on which the petitioner was dismissed was that he had abstained from work with effect from 01.06.2007 when he was posted as Assistant Manager (Accounts). The petitioner had all through been insisting that he did not want the promotion from the post of Superintendent (Sports) to Assistant Manager (Accounts) and despite his insistence that he should not be promoted, the respondents were treating him as having been promoted and as having been regularized in the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). We may also point out that one of the reasons why the petitioner did not want the promotion was that he had already been given the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme after 24 years and he was already in the scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/-, which was the very same scale which was available to Assistant Manager (Accounts). Another reason was that he did not want to take up a post which had the trappings of an executive character and he wanted to remain in a non-executive position.
Anyhow, the position is that the petitioner was served with the articles of charge and he was given full opportunity to defend himself. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had not been supplied with the documents which he had sought by virtue of his letters dated 29.02.2008 and 19.03.2008, which, according to him, would have been essential for him to defend his case. Unfortunately, we find that this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the pleadings. This averment had been made by the petitioner in paragraph 4.19 of the Original Application and had been controverted by the respondents in their counter-affidavit by stating that the documents had been supplied by virtue of two letters dated 27.03.2008 and 02.04.2008. This fact, we find, is not denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder before the Tribunal. The only plea taken by the petitioner was that these documents were not supplied within a reasonable period and were supplied only after one month. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us, that the petitioner had not been supplied with the documents, does not hold any water. We also observe from the order of the Tribunal that no such contention had been raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner had willfully abstained not only from work with effect from 01.06.2007 but also from the departmental enquiry and ultimately the charges came to be proved and the dismissal order dated 15.12.2008 was issued. The appellate authority also confirmed the dismissal by virtue of its order dated 01.05.2009.
The scope of interference, on the part of the Tribunal as also on the part of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited in such cases. Unless the petitioner is able to show that he has been denied an opportunity of defending himself or that the dismissal order is based upon no evidence, it is not possible either for the Tribunal or this Court to interfere. In the present case, we find that the petitioner had full opportunity to defend himself and this has also been noted in the order dated 02.11.2010 passed by the Tribunal. It is also not a case of no evidence.
Consequently, we cannot embark upon an examination of the circumstances with regard to promotion and refusal of promotion by the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.