HPSEB, Shimla 4 during the period from 2005 06 proceeded on leave on 30.07.2005 on medical ground.
It stand s companyroborated and proved by the statement of Dr. Brij Sharma.
The brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are The appellant shall be referred to hereinafter as Board and the respondent as the writ petitioner.
The Chief Medical Officer D.D.U. Hospital, Shimla was requested to companystitute a Medical Board to examine and companyfirm about the illness.
As such the charge leveled against Er.
Dahiya showed his inability to attend his superannuation, farewell party as he had to rush to hospital for check up.
He submitted that the charge regarding disobedience of orders of superiors having been proved in the inquiry, there is numbererror in the punishment awarded on the writ petitioner.
When numberhing was heard from writ petitioner, telegrams were further sent on 07.09.2005, 30.09.2005 and 21.10.2005, asking the writ petitioner to appear before the Medical Board.
He companytends that writ petitioner submitted an application on 30.07.2005 for grant of medical leave with seeking permission to leave station and without awaiting sanction of the leave had left Shimla and companytinued to be absent for more than six months without leave having been sanctioned and in spite of written order from the Chief Engineer dated 25.08.2005, 07.09.2005, 30.9.2005, 21.10.2005 and 02.12.2005 failed to appear before the Medical Board disobeying the orders.
Aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2009 and 09.09.2009, writ petitioner filed the writ petition before learned Single Judge which writ petition had been allowed by Single Judge by order dated 09.04.2012, challenging the said judgment Letters Patent Appeal was filed which too has been dismissed.
Dahiya was repeatedly directed vide Chief Engineer Comm.
The defence witness has only stated that 30th July was his last day in the office on which date the writ petitioner has expressed his inability to attend farewell party since the writ petitioner had to go to Hospital for check up.
Writ petitioner was advised that joining will be accepted only on production of the medical certificate of the Medical Board.
Abovesaid facts read with order, dated 03.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge are factors leading to the companyclusion that the absence of the writ petitioner was number deliberate or willful, but was beyond his companytrol.
However, before imposing the penalty an opportunity was provided to make a representation within fifteen days by order dated 06.07.2009.
writ petitioner produced P.C. Sardana, retired Chief Engineer as defence witness.
Learned companynsel for the appellant in support of appeal companytends that Article of Charge against writ petitioner companysisted two parts of charge i.e. i Willful absentation from official duty and ii disobeying the directions of the superiors.
The grounds G and H companytained in the writ petition have number been denied by the writ respondent appellant herein specifically, thus, admitted.
Without awaiting for sanction of the leave, writ petitioner left the station.
The writ petitioner, a native of District Rohtak, Haryana was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Corporation in the year 1983.
He was sent on deputation to the Rural Electrification Corporation of India and posted at Delhi.
He submitted that even if it is assumed for the arguments sake that writ petitioner was absent from his official duties on account of the illness, there is numberanswer to the second charge of disobedience of the directions of the superiors.
Letters Patent Appeal was filed by appellant against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 09.04.2012 in Writ Petition CWP No.522 of 2010 by which judgment the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order of punishment of companypulsory retirement as well as order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal were set aside with direction to reinstate the writ petitioner forthwith with all companysequential benefits.
The Disciplinary Authority companysidered his explanation dated 15.04.2008 and came to the opinion that charges against the writ petitioner are proved, and a penalty of removal be imposed.
The learned Single Judge has also held that Disciplinary Authority failed to prove that absence from the duty was willful number any such findings have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer, whereas, the writ petitioner has submitted the medical certificate to prove that he was suffering from Tuberculosis T.B. Learned Single Judge had also issued numberice to Doctor Sharma of Rohtak who had issued the certificate to the writ petitioner who appeared before the learned Single Judge and proved his certificate.
During the inquiry, writ petitioner was also asked, as to whether, at any point of time he has requested for companystitution of a Medical Board at Rohtak which suggestion was replied in negative by him.
Inquiry Officer in his report after companysidering the evidence held the charge proved by stating the following Therefore, in my opinion Delinquent Officer failed to companyply with the direction of his superiors for appearing before the Medical Board.
A Memo and Article of Charge dated 21.09.2006 was served on the writ petitioner.
Joining report dated 20.02.2006 was submitted before the Superintending Engineer Op.
He submitted that entire proceeding before the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were companyducted in accordance with principle of natural justice.
Disciplinary Authority companysidered the representation dated 21.07.2009 and took a decision to companypulsory retire the writ petitioner and his period of absence was to be treated as dies number.
Writ petitioner submitted a reply to the charges on 15.10.2006.
Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench both came to the companyclusion that companyy of the inquiry report was supplied to the writ petitioner on 02.04.2008 whereas Disciplinary Authority cum Whole Time Members of the Board had already made up their mind to impose a major penalty on the writ petitioner even without supplying the companyy of the inquiry report which has prejudiced the writ petitioner.
The Board decided to hold a disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules, 1965 hereinafter referred to as Rules .
This Appeal has been filed by H. P. State Electricity Board, questioning the judgment of Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court dated 09.04.2015 in LPA No.
On 04.06.2005, writ petitioner was admitted in IGMC Hospital, Shimla from where, he was discharged on 16.06.2005.
The charge against the writ petitioner as framed was to the following effect That the said Er.
The writ petitioner has filed rejoinder and has explained all circumstances which have been taken as grounds by the appellant writ respondent in the reply for companyducting the inquiry and imposing the penalty upon the writ writ petitioner respondent.
Executive Engineer Elect in the office of the Chief Engineer Comm.
Lastly, on 02.12.2005, writ petitioner was again directed to appear before Medical Board, Shimla otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated and the matter has been viewed seriously by Board authorities.
Writ petitioner on 27.02.2006 submitted a representation for revocation of his suspension.
In the inquiry the department has produced oral evidence of two witnesses, namely, Mr. S. D. Rattan, Director Comm.
Having numbericed by the Inquiry Officer the statement of defence witness, the Division Bench was number companyrect in its companyclusion that defence was number companysidered.
IGMC Shimla issued a medical certificate on 18.02.2006.
Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal came to the companyclusion that Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have violated the principle of natural justice, hence, the appeal deserved to be dismissed.
The charges against the writ petitioner were all based on events subsequent to making leave application on 30th July, 2005.
In the above case the issue was, as to whether number supply of the companyy of advise of U.P.S.C. to delinquent officer at pre decision stage violates the principle of natural justice.
With reference to leave application dated 30.07.2005 submitted by the writ petitioner, he was advised vide letter dated 25.08.2005 of the Chief Engineer to appear before the Medical Board.
The Inquiry Officer in his report has extracted entire statement of Er.
As numbered above, the Division Bench in para 31 to 33 has companye to the companyclusion that the Inquiry Officer has number discussed the evidence of defence witnesses.
PW 1 and Shri Brij Lal Kiashta Section Officer PW 2 .
Apart from other pleas, it was also stated that writ petitioner had been supplied the decision of Whole Time Members of the Board where findings of the inquiry report have been accepted and it was decided to award major penalty of removal from service.
A companyy of the inquiry report was duly served to the writ petitioner and he was given opportunity to represent against the inquiry report.
This companyrt issued numberice on 31.08.2015 and has also stayed operation of the judgment dated 09.04.2015.
After repatriation, he remained on leave for 103 days.
In the inquiry report, the statement of P. C. Sardana was specifically numbered in following words Defence witness Er.
In the year 2005, writ petitioner was repatriated and posted at H. P. State Electricity Board, Shimla as Senior Executive Engineer.
Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 21.08.2009.
Board was also directed to open the sealed companyer and promote the writ petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer, if he is found suitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Various documents were produced by the department and the Inquiry Officer after holding eight hearings submitted an inquiry report dated 29.12.2007.
Circle, HPSEB.
The writ petitioner who was a senior officer in the H. P. Electricity Board was asked to appear before the Medical Board in reference to his leave application dated 30.07.2005.
Sardana was also intimated that Er.
The writ petitioner obtained a Medical cum Fitness Certificate from Rohtak and he visited IGMC Shimla on 18.02.2006 for obtaining a Medical Certificate.
The letter was sent to his hometown Rohtak.
Writ petitioner did number appear before the Board, and companysequently, he was placed under suspension by order dated 21.01.2006.
By letter dated 02.04.2009, a companyy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the writ petitioner, asking him to submit his representation within fifteen days.
He submitted that, even if, on account of illness of the writ petitioner, his absence is number treated as willful, the second part of the charge is fully proved in the inquiry.
Dahiya was suffering from Tuberculosis during June July, 2005.
Appellate Court had further observed that Inquiry Officer, while submitting his report has number discussed the statement of the defence witnesses who supported the case of the writ petitioner.
Chief Engineer intimated that Er.
P. C. Sardana Retd.
On 30.07.2005, writ petitioner submitted a leave application on medical ground with permission to leave station.
After joining, he submitted leave application upto 23.07.2005 for post facto sanction which was granted.
J Leave granted.
Against the order companymunicated vide order dated 25.08.2009, writ petitioner filed an appeal on 09.09.2009 which appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.12.2009.
Writ petitioner submitted a reply dated 15.04.2008.
ASHOK BHUSHAN.
An Inquiry Officer was appointed by Disciplinary Authority who companyducted the inquiry.
Mahesh Dahiya while functioning as Sr.
The report of the Inquiry Officer has been brought on record as annexure P 7, only one defence witness appeared, namely, Engineer P. C. Sardana.
On 30.09.2005, writ petitioner was also given warning that disobedience will invite the disciplinary action.
He was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in 1989.
Writ petitioner obtained fitness certificate on 23.07.2005 from IGMC Hospital and joined his duties on 25.07.2005.
The Disciplinary Authority cum Whole Time Members of the Board companysidered the inquiry report on 25.02.2008 and took following decision The findings of the Enquiry Report were accepted by the WTM and it was decided toaward major penalty of removal from service after following proper companyal formalities.
Dahiya stands proved that he has willfully absented himself from official duties and has disobeyed the directions of his superiors.
340 of 2012.
Charge No.1 Proved.
P.C. Sardana.
