Unauthorised absentation without applying for leave, delay in preferring a petition, and conduct of the petitioner were key factors influencing the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Cm No. 10786/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.3567/2021

3. The petition impugns the order dated 9th April, 2019 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of O.A. No. 518/2014 preferred by the petitioner, impugning the disciplinary proceedings held against him on the charge of unauthorised absentation from duty for a period of 39 months 20 days 22 hours and 15 minutes, resulting in an inquiry report dated 8th November, 2012, of the charge having stood proved and the punishment meted out to the petitioner on 4th January, 2013, of dismissal from service and the order dated 5th September, 2013 of dismissal of departmental appeal preferred thereagainst.

4. This petition itself has been preferred and has come up for hearing after nearly two years of the impugned order dated 9th April, 2019. Considering the relief claimed by the petitioner, of reinstatement in service, the delay of two years on the part of the petitioner, though without job, in preferring this petition, speaks volumes of the conduct of the petitioner even now, though claiming to be aggrieved from dismissal from service on the ground of unauthorised absentation from duty.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 9 of the impugned order, where CAT, after discussion, has concluded that the petitioner had been unable to point out any violation of any of the principles of natural justice or of the procedural rules for holding departmental enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, during the disciplinary proceedings, had submitted his medical records comprising of 145 pages and which were neither discussed by the Inquiry Officer nor has any finding been given on the basis thereof. It is contended that the petitioner was mentally disturbed and thus had absented from duty and for the said reason, the punishment meted out is too harsh in the circumstances. It is further argued that the petitioner is fully recovered now and is in a position to serve.

6. We have asked the counsel for the petitioner to show to us the best medical record claimed to be produced by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure P1 to the petition, being a medical certificate dated 14th August, 2006, issued by Medical Officer of some hospital in Alwar, Rajasthan (from the stamp on the said document the name of the hospital cannot be deciphered); the typed copy of the said medical certificate is as under:-

8. As would be evident from above, the person issuing the aforesaid certificate has not even described himself as a doctor. Moreover, the ailment from which the petitioner is certified as suffering from, is stated to be 'Brain Disorder' and which is a terminology known to be used by quacks rather than medical professionals. The said medical certificate does not inspire any confidence and does not prove what is being argued by the counsel for the petitioner.

9. The counsel for the respondents Delhi Traffic Police, appearing on advance notice states that it is not that as if the Inquiry Officer has not considered the aforesaid certificate or other documents but has observed that neither the original was produced nor was any doctor brought in during the inquiry to prove that the petitioner was unwell or unable to attend the duty.

10. Be th