JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

The petitioner was an employee of the Tea Board, working in the capacity of Senior Assistant. The petitioner challenged an Order of Dismissal dated December 20, 2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Order dated August 6, 2019 passed by the Appellate Authority. On December 14/20, 2016, a Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet was issued against the petitioner for alleged misconduct, primarily on 2 grounds:

(a) He was absenting himself frequently from official duty since June 1, 2016, without prior intimation and permission; and

(b) He was a habitual late comer and seldom came to the office as per the time schedule.

2. A Reply was given to the Charge sheet on December 26, 2016. In Reply, the petitioner categorically denied and disputed the Articles of charge. He stated that the Charge Sheet did not contain clear and unambiguous charges. The number of days petitioner’s late arrival to office and the number of days of his absence was not indicated therein.

3. In the said Reply, it was maintained that the petitioner’s place of posting/seating in the office was clearly under the CCTV coverage. In the event the said CCTV footage was provided on and from June 1, 2016 till November 30, 2016, it would appear that the petitioner had not remained in unauthorized absence for a period of 37 days, as imputed by the said Charge Sheet.

4. The petitioner further contended, that it was perplexing to note that the respondent/Tea Board sought to allege that the petitioner was present at the office only for 3 days between June to November, 2016. It was undisputed that the Tea Board sought to adjust the earned and medical leave of the petitioner for the purported unauthorized absence which could not be done without intimation. Repeated requests were made for a complete and detailed chart with supporting documents of the actual number of days of purported absence and late attendance from June 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016.

5. The petitioner’s case was that, after utilizing the petitioner’s services for the whole day since the time he arrived at office (even if late), the entire day’s salary could not be deducted.

6. After giving his initial Reply on December 26, 2017 the petitioner again on March 29, 2017 and July 3, 2017 requested the Authorities/Enquiry Officer to provide the necessary documents without which it would not be possible to comment or respond to the charges against him. The petitioner reiterated his request for providing a complete and detailed chart with the actual days of absence and the actual number of days for late attendance. He requested to be provided with CCTV footage and a print copy of the biometric system of attendance.

7. Despite repeated requests, the documents, which the petitioner sought to rely upon for formulating his defence to the enquiry proceedings, were not provided to the petitioner.

8. A Second Memorandum of Charges was issued on October 10/12, 2018, whereby, the petitioner was informed that an Enquiry proceeding was decided to be conducted against him on a different issue relating to his ‘transfer’ to ‘Coonoor’. The petitioner responded to the said charges by a communication dated October 25, 2018.

9. Sometime in or around March 2018, the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Coonoor. The said Order of Transfer was challenged upto Supreme Court but the same was not interfered with. Thereafter, the petitioner prayed for voluntary retirement. The same was not acceded to by the Tea Board and the Memorandum of Charges dated October 10/12, 2018 intimating the decision to conduct enquiry was issued. The same is not the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

10. Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that the penalty of “dismissal” was passed in violation of the principles of Natural Justice. When the petitioner prayed for vital documents necessary for giving a reply to the purported Charge Memo, the respondent authoritie