A companyclusion was also arrived at that the first charge, namely, that he had number responded to the letters and reminders, also stood proved.
As the factual matrix would further uncurtain, an enquiry was companyducted against the respondent and his explanation in the enquiry was that he companyld number attend to the duties and companyld number give explanation to the first charge memo because of ill health.
That apart it has also number been disputed that the respondent writ petitioner had number suffered any earlier punishment while in the services of the appellant Board from the date of his appointment.
The appellant Board in the companynter affidavit, defending the order of dismissal, stated that the only reason given by the employee was that he companyld number attend the duties as he was availing companytinuous treatment for tuberculosis and, further, he also met with an accident in September 1995 which was unacceptable.
2531 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the judgment and order dated 21.7.2011 in W.P. No.
Being of this view, the disciplinary authority thought it apt to impose the punishment of dismissal from service and he did so.
25673 of 2007 which was preferred on 7.7.2007.
In the order of dismissal disciplinary authority observed that belated submission of medical certificate on 1.4.1997 irresistibly led to the companyclusion that the respondent employee was unauthorisedly absent from 28.8.1995.
From 28.8.1995 he remained companytinuously absent from duty without any intimation to the employer and did number respond to the repeated memoranda reminders requiring him to explain his unauthorized absence from duty and to rejoin duty.
As he had already remained unauthorisedly absent and did number respond to the memos by offering an explanation, a charge sheet had already been issued on 11.9.1996 under the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1978 for brevity the Regulations .
25673 of 2007 whereunder the learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition, and after setting aside the punishment of dismissal, directed reinstatement of the respondent with companytinuity of service but without back wages.
On an appeal being preferred by the respondent the Board rejected the appeal dated 30.6.1998.
Be it numbered, though the charge memo was duly acknowledged by the respondent on 19.11.1996, yet he chose number to submit his explanation till 6.1.1997, much after the charge sheet was issued.
The enquiry officer found charges were proved and, accordingly, submitted the enquiry report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and after following the due procedure punishment of dismissal was passed on 16.4.1998.
The charge memo companytained two charges, namely, that the respondent herein had failed to submit an explanation to the first charge memo dated 11.10.1995 inspite of reminders and second, he deserted his post by remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 28.8.1995, and thereby companymitted misconduct under Regulations 6 1 and 6 2 respectively of the Regulations.
Being dissatisfied by the order of dismissal and the affirmation thereof in appeal, the respondent preferred W.P. No.
On 1.4.1997 he reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence from duty for the period companymencing 28.8.1995 to 31.3.1997.
In addition, it was stated in the companynter affidavit that bunch of medical certificates was produced by him on 1.4.1997 which mentioned that he was suffering from depressive psychosis and bronchitis and there was numbermention about any accident and injury sustained by him in September 1995 and treatment availed by him.
15272 of 1998.
The learned Single Judge, by order dated 12.3.2003, directed re consideration of the appeal solely on the ground that the Managing Director who was the disciplinary authority had taken part in the proceedings of the Board which decided the appeal.
2531 of 2012 and the Division Bench accepted the companyclusion of the learned single Judge by stating thus It is number in dispute that the respondent writ petitioner was unwell during the said period, though there might have been some discrepancies in the date of the certificate issued, it has number been companytroverted by the appellant that the respondent writ petitioner was suffering from depressive psychosis and bronchitis.
The grievance of re affirmation of the order of dismissal was agitated by the respondent in W.P. No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.
After the said order came to be passed, the matter was again placed before the Board and the appellate authority, companysidering the enquiry report, the evidence brought on record and after due discussion, affirmed the order of disciplinary authority and companysequently dismissed the appeal on 1.7.2003.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the expose of facts that have been undraped are that the respondent was appointed as a Surveyor in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board for short, CMWSSB and subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer in 1989.
Grieved by the aforesaid order the CMWSSB preferred Writ Appeal No.
