ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member)

2. The OA is filed challenging the removal of the applicant from service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Bungalow Peon was granted temporary status on 27.7.2018. On becoming sick, though he sought leave on 24.9.2018, it was not granted and hence applicant took treatment from Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad from 24.9.2018 to 23.1.2019 (Annexure A-VI). However, after having been found to be fit, when the applicant reported to duty on 10.2.2019 he was not allowed to perform duty and instead, respondents terminated his services on 11.2.2019. Later, major disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 19.5.2020 and he was removed from service on 23.11.2020. Aggrieved, the OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that the respondents ought to have directed him for medical treatment at the Railway Hospital when he was sick and unable to perform duty. The applicant attended to duty on being found fit, but the attendance of the applicant was not marked.

Termination of services on 11.2.2019 is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Applicant was not allowed to join duty even though the termination memo of 11.2.2019 was cancelled. Terminating the services of the applicant on two occasions is incorrect. Presenting Officer was not appointed and the I.O appointed was directly working under the disciplinary authority. Instead of listed witnesses, some others were examined in the regular inquiry. Rule 9 (21) of RS (D& A) Rules 1968 was not followed, which is essential as per judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moni Shankar v. Union of India & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 1729/2008. The order of removal dated 23.11.2020 is a non-speaking one. Further, for the period for which the applicant attended the inquiry attendance was not marked.

5. Respondents in the reply statement state that the applicant did not inform about his sickness nor sought leave and was on unauthorized leave from 21.9.2018 to 10.2.2019 for a period of 143 days. After taking treatment from other hospitals, Govt. Servants are required to approach the Railway Hospital and get the fitness certificate. Applicant never reported to duty as claimed by him. Earlier termination order, when withdrawn, would mean that the applicant has been taken on duty but the applicant did not report to duty. Applicant alleging that he was not allowed to perform duty is only an afterthought. Major penalty charge sheet was issued and after following the rules, the penalty of removal was imposed. Appointing a P.O in an unauthorized absence case is not required and appointing I.O is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. Applicant had not raised any objection in regard to the I.O during the inquiry. The I.O asked the applicant as to whether he has anything to say about question No.16. Disciplinary authority issued a speaking order. No appeal was preferred by the applicant.

6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.

7. I.

The dispute is about the removal of the applicant from service.

From the facts, it is seen that the applicant while working as Bungalow Peon was reported to be sick and when asked for leave or refer to the Railway Hospital for treatment, the applicant claims that it was denied.

Respondents assert that the applicant has neither sought leave nor did he make a request to be sent to the Railway Hospital. Respondents claim that for the unauthorized absence from 21.9.2018 to 10.2.2019, applicant’s services were initially terminated on 11.2.2019 and thereafter, major disciplinary proceedings were initiated resulting in the removal of the applicant from service on 23.11.2020. II.

It is an admitted fact that the applicant was granted temporary status on 20.7.2018 and this being so, it is not understand as to how the respondents could terminate the services of the applicant on 11.2.2019 without conducting a regular inquiry. Such an action, violates