The importance of providing a delinquent employee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the consequences of non-participation in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Omiya Anusha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Faisal Allam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

“For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.10.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 has dismissed the petitioner from the services, in violation of the principles of natural justice and by violating the legal procedure to be followed in the case punishment and for any other writ/order/direction as to Your Lordships may appear fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Arguments of the petitioner

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte. He also submits that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was issued on 21.09.2006 as contained in Annexure-3 on the ground that the petitioner left without intimation on 05.02.2006 and thereafter, did not join the duty. He submits that the said allegation itself is self-contradictory. He submits that it was also mentioned in the charge-sheet itself that the petitioner had left for taking medicine, but did not return, so it cannot be said that the petitioner had left without intimation.

5. The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has been a patient of mental illness which is apparent from the prescriptions annexed as Annexure-1 series. The first prescription is of 07.02.2006 and the last one is of 02.04.2009. The learned senior counsel submits that a certificate was also issued by the concerned doctor treating the petitioner in Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS) that the petitioner has been a patient of depression (mental illness) and under his treatment since 07.02.2006 to 02.04.2009.

6. The learned Senior counsel submits that thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents to join his services, but ultimately, he was informed that he has been terminated on account of unauthorized absence from duty vide order dated 13.10.2007, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

7. The learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner was not even given the copy of the enquiry report so as to enable the petitioner to respond to the findings recorded in the enquiry report. He also submits that this amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice and in view of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service, the second show-cause coupled with the copy of the enquiry report, was required to be given to the petitioner. The learned Senior counsel also submits that the petitioner was provided a copy of the order of punishment only when he asked for it upon joining in the year 2009.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar and Others). He has referred to paragraphs 24 to 28 of the said judgement.

Arguments of the respondents

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the medical prescriptions which have been annexed along with the writ petition are not admitted from the side of the respondents. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not take leave and go, rather he had made an entry in the register kept with the guard that he was leaving to buy medicines. He also submits that upon buying medicine also, the petitioner was supposed to come back, but he never returned and no intimation was given from the side of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner as back as in the year 2006, but the petitioner did not care to inform the enquiry officer regarding h