Dismissal for unauthorized absenteeism upheld as justified despite claims of procedural unfairness due to failure of the petitioner to engage with the enquiry process.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Award passed by the 1^st respondent in I.D.No.30 of 2003, dated08.12.2004.

2. Heard Sri. P. Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the materialavailable on record.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) The petitioner was appointed as a Badili Filler inMarch 1987 and promoted as Coal filler in 1993. The petitioner’s services were confirmed as a Coal filler by order, dated 17.09.1993. Thereafter, a dismissal order dated11.09.1997 was passed against the petitioner, with retrospective effect from 22.03.1996.

b) During the year 1996, the petitioner fell seriously ill; as such, he applied for sanction of leave and took treatment in the Company’s Hospital, other private hospitals, and Government hospitals. The petitioner underwent treatment for jaundice, nasal allergy due to coal dust, severe body pains, etc. After recovery in the month of September 1997, when the petitioner reported to duty, he was served with a dismissal order, dated 11.09.1997.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent, before passing the dismissal order, did not issue any chargesheet nor call for explanation, and conducted an ex parte enquiry. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 11.09.1997, the petitioner raised I.D.No.30 of 2003 before the 1^st respondent, raising several contentions, including the validity of the domestic enquiry. The 1^st respondent, by its Award, dated 16.10.2003, held that the Chargesheet and enquiry proceedings were not served to the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry proceedings were set aside, and I.D. was closed, directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after following the procedure.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27250 of 2003 before this Court, and the same was allowed on 28.01.2004 and remitted the matter back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration. Upon such remittance, the matter was reconsidered by the 1^st respondent and, based on the evidence adduced on either side, dismissed the I.D.Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, except for the evidence adduced by the petitioner as WW-1, there is no other evidence on behalf of the 2^nd respondent to prove the allegation against the petitioner, much less by examining the relevant witnesses. The 1^st respondent had failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and arrived at a perverse conclusion. Therefore, the Award passed by the 1st respondent is untenable in law and fact and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

7. The learned Government pleader appearing for respondent No.2 filed a counter and submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized absentee and his services were terminated by order dated 11.09.1997. The Award passed by the 1^st respondent in ID No.30 of 2003 is just and legal and is in accordance with the law. In the instant case, the 1st respondent, after going through the evidence led in by the petitioner and also on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, came to a clear and categorical finding that even after scanning the entire medical certificates marked as exhibits W.13, there is no proof of the physical condition and the restriction of movements of the petitioner. It is simply stated that the absence of the petitioner is necessary during that period. For what purpose the absence is necessary, is not mentioned.

8. The learned Government pleader further submits that it w