ORDER

1. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality validity and propriety of orders dated 12.7.2019 (Annexure-P-1) and 4.1.2020 (Annexure-P-2).

2. By order dated 12.7.2019 the respondents after conducting exparte departmental enquiry as petitioner did not participate in it passed an order of removal from service as the charge leveled against the petitioner for unauthorized absence from duty was found proved. By order dated 4.1.2020 appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was rejected by the respondents.

3. To decide the controversy involved in the case, certain relevant facts need to be adumbrated in a nutshell are :-

4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager (Technical) on 4.1.1990 and he was placed in Indira Sagar Project. Thereafter, by order dated 3.7.2017 he was sent to Gandhi Sagar Project for one month and on 21.8.2017 again that period has been extended for a period of one month.

5. The petitioner submitted a leave application for two days i.e 18.8.2017 and 19.8.2017 before Regional Manager Gandhi Sagar but after two days he did not join the duties. As per the petitioner, he was fallen ill and was bed ridden for one and half month. According to him, it was duly apprised to the competent authority by moving an application for leave.

6. On 27.8.2017, the petitioner was directed to make his presence at Bhopal and he was travelling in train from his home town Hoshangabad to Bhopal but unfortunately while using the bathroom in the train he fell down due to twist in his ankle, which resulted into grave injury in his head and he also suffered neurological disorder. He became unconscious and infact lost his memory. He was running from pillar to post in the whole country for a long time and after coming to a conscious mind appeared before the competent authority, placed all those facts and requested to allow him to join the duties.

7. During the period when the petitioner was absent from duty the department proceeded with a disciplinary proceeding; conducted ex-parte enquiry and also passed an order on 12.7.2019 inflicting major penalty of removal from service for unauthorized absence of a period of 23 months. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal under Rule 37(kha) of M.P.Matsya Mahasangh (Sahkari) Maryadit, Service Rules but the same was dismissed by order dated 4.1.2020.

8. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that despite placing sufficient material before the authorities so as to explain the reason for unauthorized absence, they did not consider the same. It is also contended that looking to the overall circumstances and the fact that petitioner remained unauthorized absent for the reason which was beyond his control the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate and as such orders deserve to be set-aside.

9. The respondents have submitted their reply.

10. As per the respondents, the notice was issued to the petitioner but he remained absent in departmental enquiry. There was no option with the enquiry officer but to proceed ex-parte.

11. In the reply, it is stated that petitioner did not appear on 21.8.2017 to perform the duties and on 24.8.2017 sent an application for two weeks through E-mail but thereafter nothing was informed and even thereafter he remained absent from duty. Then, a public notice was issued in a news paper namely Dainik Bhaskar asking petitioner to submit his joining within a week but even though he remained absent. On 24.1.2018 a letter was sent to the petitioner on his address shown in his service record asking him to submit his explanation within 15 days and when reply was not filed departmental enquiry was instituted and one V.K.Rai Regional Manager, Bhopal was appointed as enquiry officer. Letters were also sent to the petitioner through registered and speed post and also by public notice to appear in the departmental enquiry and to produce his evidence and witnesses b