IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disciplinary actions based on unauthorized absenteeism are valid if proper procedures are followed, and allegations of bias must be substantiated with evidence.

JUDGMENT

M. M. Sathaye, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 13 April 2017 by which the Petitioner has been terminated from the services of Respondent No.3- Shipping Corporation of India ('SCI' for short). The Petitioner is also praying for his reinstatement into the services with consequential benefits in accordance with law. The Petitioner is also seeking direction to the Union of India and Central Vigilance Commission to take action in respect of complaints lodged by the Petitioner and to provide him protection from victimization. The Petitioner is lastly seeking payment of reasonable compensation for his victimization for violation of the right to livelihood.

CASE & SUBMISSIONS

3. In short, it is the case of the Petitioner that he was appointed as Junior Technical Assistant with SCI in October 1987 and got promoted as Section Head in September 1994 and since then he was serving as such. The Petitioner had filed Public Interest Litigation in this Court alleging loss of crores of rupees to SCI and had questioned the competence of the Chairman and Managing Director of the SCI. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that the PIL filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable because the Petitioner had an interest in the subject matter as an employee of the SCI and therefore, by order dated 11 April 2016, the PIL was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. It further appears that thereafter, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2084 of 2016, questioning the appointment of Shri B.B. Sinha as Director of (P & A) of SCI on the ground of educational qualification held by him. This petition was dismissed on 19 June 2017 on the ground that as on that date, the Petitioner was already terminated/compulsorily retired on 13 April 2017. This Order was carried in Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are informed that in January 2019, the concerned SLP(C) No. 20074/2017 has been disposed off as infructuous. The Petitioner has filed present petition challenging the said order of termination, which is presently impugned.

4. It is contended by the Petitioner that the charge-sheet was filed against him on 9 April 2012, charging that the Petitioner contravened Rule 17(1)(ii)(e) of the governing Service Rules i.e. absenteeism from duty in December 2008 and between April 2009 to May 2011. It is contended that show cause notice dated 8 June 2011 was issued. It is contended that Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20 June 2012 who held enquiry against the Petitioner. It is further contended that the Petitioner submitted documentary evidence including attendance slips and medical papers showing that the Petitioner was suffering from health issue such as Slip Disc for which he was admitted in the hospital in August 2002. It is contended that he was admitted in hospital at Mulund in March 2009 for treatment of acute knee pain and then in July 2009 for the treatment of malarial fever. It is contended that an Inquiry Report dated 25 April 2013 was filed. It is contended that then, after a period of almost 4 years, the impugned order was passed terminating the services of the Petitioner.

5. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the entire disciplinary inquiry and order of termination is a counter blast to the Petitioner filing a petition against the Director of SCI and the PIL. It is contended that the inquiry has been conducted and the impugned order has been issued out of malice, borne out of action of the Petitioner trying to expose the case relating to SCI as alleged by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order being passed by Mr. B.B. Sinha, the then Director, is violative of principles of natural justice amounting to a person becoming Judge in his own cause. It is contended that a person having any interest, stake, grudge or bias aga