Removal from service for prolonged unauthorized absence upheld; no acceptance of resignation during pending disciplinary proceedings; no discrimination claim valid against lesser penalty in another case with differing facts.

O R D E R

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

i. To call for the records pertaining to the order passed by Respondent No.1 vide Proceedings No.SCR/P- HQ/425(a)/DAR/W3/SC/MK/2020, dt.17.08.2021 and consequential proceedings No.ADEN/RDM/E/10-B, dt.08.02.2016; ADEN/RDM/E/10-B, dt.29.03.2016 and ADEN/RDM/E/10-B, dt.27.12.2017 issued by the Respondents wherein the representation of the Applicant was rejected and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Court of AP and Hon’ble Tribunal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same;

ii. Consequently, direct the Respondents No.1 to extend and treat the applicant equal to the other employee namely G.Swamy and reinstate the applicant with penalty awarded to the said employee with all consequential benefits and to pass such orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as per the submissions of the applicant, are as follows:

i. The applicant was appointed as Track Maintainer IV in May, 2013, and detailed to work under the control of the Senior Section Engineer, P.Way, Manchiryal, which is under the administrative control of Respondent No.2.

ii. Respondent No.4 issued a Charge Memo SF V to the applicant on 31.12.2014, charging the applicant with unauthorized absence from June, 2014, to December, 2014, in different spells, for 186 days. Respondents served the charge memo on the applicant, but the notice of inquiry was not served and it was pasted on the tool box at the work place and at the permanent residential address of the applicant. In fact, the applicant was not aware of the inquiry. Ex-parte inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) held the charge as proved. The Inquiry Report was communicated, on 29.01.2016, to the applicant by Respondent No.4 / the Disciplinary Authority who also passed an order, on 08.02.2016, removing the applicant from service with immediate effect. The said order was confirmed by Respondent No.3/the Appellate Authority, on 29.03.2016. Against the said order, the applicant preferred a revision petition to Respondent No.2 and the same was also dismissed on 27.12.2017.

iii. It is contended that the applicant, before entering into the service of the Respondents, had applied for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in Telangana State. He was selected, provisionally, for the post of RSI (APSP), because of which he submitted his resignation on 08.04.2015, with request to the Respondents to accept the resignation and relieve him.

iv. The applicant argues that he had submitted his resignation even prior to the penalty order passed by Respondent No.4, and, therefore, Respondents ought to have accepted his resignation and closed the charge memo. Instead, Respondents proceeded with the inquiry and punished him. As provisional selection of the applicant, as an RSI, was cancelled by the State Government of Telangana, the applicant is left with no job. According to him, it is well settled law that unauthorized absence is not misconduct and the administration can take a lenient view. v. It is further submitted that, in view of the above situation and to earn his livelihood, the applicant made a representation to the General Manager, SCR/Respondent No.1, on 13.11.2018, requesting him to consider his case for reinstatement as a new entrant. The said m