AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Veerappa, J.—This writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.1.2013 passed in O.A. No. 112/2011 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short ''the CAT''), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and confirming the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority.
The petitioner, who was the applicant before the Administrative Tribunal filed application to set aside the Dismissal order dated 03.01.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent Annexure-A4 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority - 2nd respondent dated 31.12.2010 vide Annexure-A6 and also sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to reinstate the applicant back into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
It is the case of the original applicant/petitioner that he was appointed as a Room Orderly by the respondents w.e.f. 17.2.2000 and subsequently after completion of satisfactory probation, his services have been confirmed and he has maintained unblemished record of service. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence for which the petitioner has suitably replied and being not satisfied with the reply the respondent ordered domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer submitted report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved and on the basis of the Enquiry Report the 3rd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service and it was affirmed by the 2nd respondent - Appellate Authority. The said orders were the subject matter in O.A. 112/2011 before the CAT.
The CAT after hearing both the parties has dismissed the application by the present impugned order. Against the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
Sri M.C. Basavaraju learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the CAT as well as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority without considering the medical certificate, have proceeded to pass orders which has resulted in injustice to the petitioner; that the enquiry conducted by the 3rd respondent is not in accordance with Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Hereinafter referred to as ''the CCA Rules''); though the petitioner has explained the same before the Tribunal, it has not considered the material documents before passing the impugned order. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Per contra, Sri N. Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the total absence of the petitioner exceeds 600 days in a span of five years and he was in the habit of absenting himself from duties without any reason. On these among other grounds, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.
The 3rd respondent issued Articles of charges on 20.2.2007 framing two charges. The statement of articles of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct along with memorandum dated 20.2.2007 read as under:-
"ANNEXURE-I
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI T. ISREAL, ROOM ORDERLY OF SELECTION CENTRE SOUTH, CUBBON ROAD, BANGALORE
That the said Shri T. Israil, Room Orderly of Selection Centre South, Bangalore is Charged for the following articles:-
ARTICLES I
That the said Shri T. Israil, while functioning as Room Orderly of Administrative Officer of Selection Centre South on 03 Jan 07 was found to be under the influence of alcohol while on duty.
That the said Shri T. Israil, working as Room Orderly in the aforesaid office by committing the above said act has violated the provision of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA), 1965.
ARTICLES II
That the said Shri T. Isreal, Room Orderly in the office of Administrative Officer of Selection Centre South Bangalore Was periodically absent from his duty i.e., with effect from 01 Dec 2006 to 10 Dec 2006, 20 Dec 2006 to 29 Dec 2006 and 04 Jan 2007 to 28 Jan 2007 without Sanction of competent authority.
That the said Shri T. Israil, working as Room Orderly in the aforesaid office has violated the provision of rule 11 of CCS (CCA), 1965.
ANNEXURE II
STATEMENT OF IMPUTATIONS OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI. T. ISREAL, ROOM ORDERLY OF SELECTION CENTRE SOUTH, BANGALORE.
ARTICLE I
That Shri T. Israil, working as Room Orderly in the office of Administrative Officer of Selection Centre South is a habitual drinker and on few occasion had reported on duty in an aberrated state. On his verbal assurance that he will improve his conduct he was given verbal warning and counseled to improve his conduct. However on 03 Jan 2007 he again reported on duty in an aberrated state and on being questioned and examined in the Centre MI Room by the Nursing Assistant, the said Shri T. Israil, Room Orderly Confessed to him that he had consumed alcohol before reporting on duty.
ARTICLE II
That the said Shri T. Israil, working as Room Orderly in the aforesaid office is habitual absentee from duty without sanction of competent authority, He was continuously warned for his irregular presence to which he gave verbal and written undertaking that he will improve his conduct. However, he was again absent from duty from 01 Dec 2006 to 10 Dec 2006, 20 Dec 2006 to 29 Dec 2006 and 04 Jan 2007 to 28 Jan 2007 without sanction of the competent sanctioning authority. On 29 Jan 2007 he was brought by his younger brother Mr. Samuel to rejoin duty."
The same was replied by the petitioner on 28.08.2007 denying the charges leveled against him. The 3rd respondent not being satisfied with the reply has appointed Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and submitted the report. On the basis of the report and considering the entire material on record, Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service w.e.f. 3rd January 2008 exercising powers under Rule 15(4) and 19(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1955. It is also not in dispute that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority came to be dismissed on 31.12.2010 on the ground of delay and laches; the appeal was filed after 2 years 9 months though appeal should have been filed within 45 days from the date on which the copy of order was delivered to the appellant. As the appellant has not made out any sufficient cause in preferring the appeal, the CAT considering the entire material on record has recorded a finding on facts that the petitioner had been habitually absenting from duties for much longer period. Several colleagues had filed complaint against him that he is a habitual alcoholic and attended office under the influence of alcohol. Even though the applicant claimed that he had sent leave application, that itself, will not be sufficient reason to condone his absence. The respondents produced Annexure R-7; the charges framed against the petitioner by the respondents have been accepted by the petitioner on 19.3.2007 as under:-
"(a) on 03 Jan 2007 I was under the Influence of alcohol while on duty with CHQ SCS Bangalore with full sincerely and honesty admit this charge levelled against me wide commandant selection centre south charge sheet Dated 20 Feb 2007
(b) I admit that I was periodically absent for my duty with effect from 01 Dec 2006 to 10 Dec 2006, 20 Dec to 29 Dec, 4 Jan 2007 to 28 Jan 2007, without sanction of competent authority.
(i) I am having three daughters, Due family problems my wife went to her house. My brother is looking after to my all this affected mis mind emotionally and was unable to make the right decisions.
(ii) I also here by states that please pardon me this time. I will prove my obedience to words my duty and I will not repeat any such misconduct."
Considering the entire material on record the CAT rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
It is relevant to state at this stage, that 3rd respondent filed statement of objections to the present writ petition and specifically contended that the petitioner was under the habit of absenting himself from duties without any reason and on several occasions a lenient view was taken by imposing minor penalties and that petitioner has admitted his excess alcoholism. As per the records of the respondents, the total absence of the petitioner exceeds 600 days in a span of 5 years. Taking into consideration the entire material on record the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appeal and the same is confirmed by the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It has also held that the appeal is barred by limitation. The same is re-affirmed by the order passed by the CAT on merits.
The assertions made in the statement of objections by the respondents have not been denied by the petitioner by way of rejoinder. It is clear from the records that the petitioner was in the habit of absenting himself for duty w.e.f. 1.12.2006 without sanction of leave from the competent authority and thereby he has violated the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. Moreover the petitioner himself has confessed that he had consumed alcohol before reporting for duty.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case, so as to interfere under extraordinary writ jurisdiction, with the findings of fact recorded by the authority below as well as the Administrative Tribunal based on cogent legal evidence on record. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.