The disciplinary authority's decision is upheld as the petitioner admitted guilt and the absence was not justifiable per service standards.

JUDGMENT : 

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 30.01.2006 as passed by the respondent no. 2/authority as well as the order dated 04.09.2006 as passed by the respondent no. 3/authority. By the order dated 30.01.2006 the respondent no. 2/authority being the disciplinary authority after conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding was not satisfied with the reply given by the delinquent who is the writ petitioner before this Court and thus while accepting the enquiry report of the enquiry officer imposes major penalty upon the writ petitioner for removal from service.

2. By the order dated 04.09.2006 the respondent no. 3/authority found no merit in the appeal of the delinquent and thus dismissed the said appeal.

3. On careful perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court it reveals to this Court that undisputedly the present writ petitioner was at all material time was posted as driver at Frontier Headquarter, SSB Patna.

4. On account of alleged misconduct on the part of the present writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was severed with a memorandum dated 17.01.2005 containing statement of articles of charges as framed against him along with statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior in support of the articles of charge framed against him, copies of which have been annexed at page nos. 23 to 27 of the instant writ petition.

5. Since the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the replies of the said charges as given by the delinquent, enquiry proceeding was initiated wherein the writ petitioner allegedly admitted his guilt.

6. By a memo dated 12.12.2005 as has been annexed at page no. 29 of the instant writ petition the respondent no. 2/authority being the disciplinary authority provisionally accepted the findings of the enquiry authority, however, an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner/delinquent to make a representation as to why major penalty of ‘removal from service’ would not be imposed upon the writ petitioner.

7. Materials have been placed before this Court that the writ petitioner replied to such memo under cover of his letter dated 01.01.2006. The disciplinary authority being the respondent no. 2/authority, however, was not satisfied with such reply and thereafter by the impugned order dated 30.01.2006 imposed the aforementioned major penalty upon the writ petitioner.

8. At the time of hearing Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner while drawing attention to the charges as framed against the writ petitioner strongly contended that the charges as framed against the writ petitioner do not contain any ingredients of misconduct inasmuch as in such articles of charges there is no whisper regarding willful absence on the part of the delinquent.

9. Placing his reliance upon the decision of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 it is argued by Mr. Lahiri that in order to come to a finding with regard to alleged unauthorized absence the enquiry authority is duty bound to come to a finding that such unauthorized absence of the delinquent must be willful which is distinguishable from the compelling circumstances beyond the control of the delinquent. It is submitted by Mr. Lahiri that no material could be placed on behalf of the respondents/Union of India and its instrumentalities that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had come to a finding that the unauthorized absence of the writ petitioner is willful. It is thus submitted by Mr. Lahiri that in a