Prolonged unauthorised absence (686 days) from time-bound duties without leave or substitute is serious misconduct proved by guilty plea; discharge with benefits proportionate, not interfering unless shocks conscience.

ORDER 

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act. 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To quash the (i) Memo No.ADA/GDS/MSK/DLGS dated at Bengaluru – 560 025 the 18.11.2021, issued by the respondent No.4, Annexure A5, (ii) Order No.F/Disc-12/2020-21/Appeal dated at Bengaluru – 560 025 the 20.6.2023, issued by the respondent No.3, Annexure A9 and (iii) Order No.BGR/VIG/10-3/SKM/2023 dtd Bengaluru – 560 001, the 29.09.2023, issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure A13,

(ii) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits with full pay and allowances and continuity of service from the date of his discharge till the date of his reinstatement and

(iii) Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The above mentioned reliefs are claimed on the grounds as agitated in para 5 (i) to 5(v) of the Original Application. The brief facts of the applicant are that he was appointed as GDSMD at Vimanapura NBC, Bengaluru on 23.2.2009. He was proceeded with disciplinary action as per Rule 10B of GDS (C&E) Rules, 2020 for 3 spells of unauthorized absence from 5.3.2019 to 7.2.2021, in total 496 days vide memo dated 18.6.2021. The applicant furnished his explanation that he absented during above period due to his domestic problems and he was in depression. In the inquiry held subsequently in to the charge, the applicant admitted the charge. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.09.2021 holding that the charge has been proved against the applicant. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, the respondent No.5, by an order dated 18.11.2021, imposed a penalty discharging the applicant from service with monetary benefits. The appellate authority did not entertain the appeal of the applicant on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. He has failed to consider the reasons given by the applicant for the delay. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a revision petition to the respondent No.2, which has been rejected by an order dated 29.09.2023. Hence, based on the grounds made in paragraph 5(i) to 5(v), the applicant seeks for allowing his Original Application and for granting reliefs as claimed.

3. On notice, respondents have filed their detailed reply statement wherein the basic facts of the case are not controverted, but it is asserted by the respondents that the inquiry has been conducted as per the rules and procedures and the charges leveled against the applicant are admitted by the applicant and as unauthorized absence without obtaining leave and making alternate arrangements caused disruption of the sensitive work of delivery of posts and other important day to day activities of the Post Office. And that affected a large number of public which gives a bad impression about the department among the public. Hence, the respondents vehemently asserted that in the context of very long and repeated absence, the penalty imposed is proportionate.

4. The respondents further assert that they have been sympathetic and compassionate in not removing the applicant from service forfeiting his all retirement dues, but they have considered his earlier services and granted a penalty of discharging the applicant from service with monetary benefits. Hence they assert that there is no merit in the Original Application and they pray for dismissing the O.A.

5. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant