CWP No.17619 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17619 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2008 Shri Atul Kumar Mittal ...Petitioner Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal ...Respondents Commission Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner in this writ petition has impugned orders, Annexures P-6 and P-9 vide which his services have been terminated. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was appointed as a clerk in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa on 14th February, 1996. In the year 2004 the petitioner was transferred to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur. On 22nd April, 2005, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner wherein the following charges were levelled against him:- “a) That you have been sending applications for leave by making false excuses. b) Have been enjoying leaves without getting them sanctioned. In this way you are absent from office since 10.01.2005. c) You have not intentionally received letters and one CWP No.17619 of 2008 2 telegram sent on your address and refused to take those letters on your arrival in office. d) Inspite of instructions given to you, you did not appear before Civil Surgeon Sangrur for medical checkup in this way you have defied the orders of competent officer. e) This conduct of yours is of grave indiscipline and uncalled for and irresponsible conduct for a government employee.” The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet, Annexure P-2. Vide order dated 5th August, 2005 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 26th April, 2006 and deposed before him. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner also submitted written arguments dated 26th May, 2006, Annexure P-4 before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report which was considered by the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that all the allegations stood proved. He, thus, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as it was proposed to impose the punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said notice, as a result of which he was removed from service vide order dated 5th October, 2006, Annexure P-6. The said order reads thus: “Vide Memo No.341 dated 24.08.2006, copy of CWP No.17619 of 2008 3 which was sent to you under the confidential registered cover, which you did not accept and came back unclaimed, where after the said memo was served upon you personally through special messenger of this forum namely Mohinder Singh, Naib Court on 15.09.2005, you were asked to submit your representation within 15 days from receipt of notice to the proposed penalty of removing you from service on the basis of proved article of charges as detailed in the same memo, you having failed to submit your representation within the stipulated time are liable to be imposed the penalty of removing you from the service which I, as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, hereby, impose upon you with the result, you stand removed from the service with immediate effect.” The petitioner after a lapse of more than one year preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground that the same was hopelessly time barred as the appeal was to be preferred within 45 days but had been filed after an undue delay of more than one year and two months. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record annexed to the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the absence of the petitioner was not willful but due to the fact that he was suffering from back pain and depression and for this purpose he had CWP No.17619 of 2008 4 been applying for leave from time to time. The counsel has further argued that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing during the course of inquiry and thus the proceedings were vitiated. It has also been argued that the appellate authority ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. It should have considered the matter on merits. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner remained absent from duty on one ground or the other. He submitted numerous leave applications from time to time. Even when leave was not sanctioned, the petitioner chose to remain absent. During the course of inquiry, the Presenting Officer produced 20 documents and witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner did not chose to cross-examine the witnesses. However, he produced his medical leave applications in his defence. After considering the entire matter, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner has been making lame excuses to remain absent. Even when his leave was not sanctioned, he chose to remain absent. The President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur after considering the inquiry report, came to the conclusion that penalty of removal from service deserved to be imposed upon the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this respect. However, the petitioner again chose not to respond to the same. He thereafter preferred an appeal after a lapse of more than one year and two months which was dismissed as time barred by the appellate authority i.e. the CWP No.17619 of 2008 5 President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and have come to the conclusion that no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned orders. It is quite clear that the petitioner had remained absent from duty by making one excuse or the other. Even in his defence before the Enquiry Officer, he only produced his leave applications. However, mere submission of leave applications cannot absolve the petitioner of his habitual absenteeism. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. We are not impressed with the submission that the appellate authority ought to have considered the matter on merits despite the fact that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of one year and two months. We thus find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders, Annexures P-6 and P-9. The writ petition is thus dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 21, 2008 'rajpal'