IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a wilful absence from duty, especially in emergency situations, constitutes misconduct under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, and that disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose appropriate penalties based on the severity of the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

Heard Mr. S Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner employee had challenged the award dated 14.11.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 07/2012 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guwahati, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal declined to interfere with the punishment of discharge from service dated 11.08.2009 imposed upon the petitioner pursuant by the respondent management pursuant to a departmental proceeding.

3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition can be summarised as follows:

I. The petitioner was appointed as a Laboratory Technician at Vivekananda Kendra NRL Hospital, Numaligarh (hereafter referred to as the Hospital). The service of the petitioner was confirmed/ regularised on 22.08.2000.

II. On 16.05.2009, a memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner, whereby it was informed that the management had proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. A substance of imputation of misconduct, in respect of which the enquiry was proposed, was also annexed as annexure 1.

III. Three charges were framed in the article of charges, which are quoted hereinbelow:

(i) That on 28.03.2009 when Ambulance Driver Sri Pramod Dutta went to your residence at 11 p.m. with Call Book sent to you by GDMO on duty for some urgent investigations of a patient admitted in causality, you refused to attend the call despite being on “call duty on 28.03.2009”, which speaks of your negligence to your work and duty.

(ii) Not only did you decline to attend the duty, you also failed to give any intimation to the Doctor on duty, or your Head of the Department and Hospital Administrative Officer which clearly reflects your utter lack of responsibility and negligence and your disrespect to a noble profession that too in a Hospital founded on the philosophy of Swami Vivekananda based on noble moto to serve afflicted patient coming to the Hospital for treatment under emergent physical condition.

(iii) It is also brought to your notice that you have been warned previously for similar lapses and derelictions, copies of which are enclosed at exhibits H, I, J, K, L, M, N, which will be taken into consideration when deciding your case.

IV. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 25.05.2009. The stand taken by the petitioner in his reply can be summarised as follows:

(i) The petitioner was physically not well on that day and was suffering from acute headache. Understanding the severity of call, he had apprised the facts to the driver with a request to intimate the same to the GDMO, NRL hospital to call alternative. He denied that he was negligent, rather he took a stand that he could not attend the duty for the reason of his illness.

(ii) He also contended that on earlier consecutive dates with effect from 23rd March, 2009 to 29th March, 2009 he was entrusted ‘on call’ duty and there are no failure or lapses on his part on those dates.

(iii) He also took a stand that the situation was well managed, which he subsequently confirmed and therefore he did not feel it necessary to contact the higher authority for the same.

V. Thereafter, on 28.05.2009, the Enquiry Officer started the enquiry proceeding and asked the delinquent to appear before the Enquiry Officer as per scheduled date and time.

VI. The petitioner participated in the enquiry, filed written statement, cross-examined the management witness and also lead his own evidence.

VII. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 17.06.2009, wherein the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges.

VIII. Subsequently, on 11.08.2009, punishment of discharge from service was inflicted upon the petitioner.

IX. Thereafter, on being approached by the petitioner for reconsideration of the punishment, the matter was referred to