JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

Petitioner who was employed as Laboratory Attendant in the respondent in Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute of Delhi University (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent-Institute’) was dismissed from service on 30th May, 2003 consequent upon a departmental inquiry. Petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the Termination Order (Annexure P-25) by way of filing a statutory appeal, which also stands dismissed vide impugned order of 30th September, 2003 (Annexure P-30).

Quashing of Termination Order (Annexure P-25), Appellate Order (Annexure P-30) and Memorandum (Annexure P-23), which is the Inquiry Report of 9th May, 2003 is sought in this petition with consequential benefits.

Out of eight charges framed against petitioner, Articles of Charge Nos.1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 stood proved against petitioner in the departmental proceedings. The first Article of Charge related to petitioner’s habitually coming late to the office and the third charge pertained to unauthorized absence of petitioner on 15th January, 1999, 20th January, 1999 and 22nd January, 1999. The fourth charge relates to misconduct of non-adherence to the instructions by superior officers. The seventh charge relates to using abusive and impertinent language in conversation with superior officers.

On the eighth charge, the Inquiry Officer in his report has opined that the eighth charge is off shoot of Articles of charges No.1, 3, 4 and 7 which already stand proved. The Disciplinary Authority acting upon the Inquiry Officer’s Report passed the dismissal order (Annexure P-25) holding that petitioner had committed grave misconduct and had rendered himself unfit for continuation as an employee of the respondent-Institute. Appellate Authority vide impugned order of 30th September, 2003 (Annexure P-30) has held that the procedure laid down for the conduct of inquiry has been duly followed and the termination of petitioner’s service is in accordance with the rules and that the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon petitioner is not disproportionate to the proved misconduct of petitioner.

The challenge to the impugned order, termination order and the Inquiry Report by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that the inquiry against petitioner proceeds at three memos issued in one day i.e. on 25th January, 1999. It is pointed out that the first memo was issued in the morning and the second memo in the afternoon and the third memo in the evening on that day and the evidence on record does not substantiate the first charge of petitioner habitually coming late to the office. It was pointedly submitted that no witness has deposed on this aspect to prove the first charge and so far as third charge is concerned, it was submitted that once a leave application is given, then in normal course it is accepted. Non-acceptance of petitioner’s leave on the ground of domestic work would have entailed the deduction of salary for the few days in January, 1999 in which month, the petitioner had remained on leave. It was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the fourth charge of insubordination to superior assistant Sh. Randhir Singh does not stand proved at all because his evidence is contrary to the aforesaid charge. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to prove the charge of petitioner refusing to perform the duty assigned to him and that the service record of petitioner for the last three decades is good and petitioner had crossed the efficiency bars. Regarding the seventh charge, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that this charge is clearly motivated because petitioner was being asked to do the job of daftari, whereas he was employed as a Lab Assistant and when petitioner had resisted in doing the work of daftari, then such a charge has been levelled against petitioner.

Lastly, it was submitted that in any case the penalty of dismissal from service is wholly disproportionate to the pro