IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4918 of 2010 Ramanand Tuddu, Son of Jaipal Tuddu, Ex- C/No.836, Junior Engineer-I, Crane Shop, Eastern Railway Jamalpur Work Shop under Munger District, resident of Village-Mandara, P.O. Gobadda, P.S. Haveli-Kharagpur, District-Munger ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager Eastern, Railway 17 Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Fairly Palace Kolkata. 2. Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway Jamalpur Worksshop, Jamalpur, District-Munger. 3. Chief Mechanical Engineer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta, Fairly Palace Kolkata. 4. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (Crane) Eastern Railway Jamalpur Workshop Jamalpur, District- Munger. 5. Assistant Work’s Manager (Crane)-cum- Enquiry Officer, Eastern Railway Jamalpur, District-Munger ----- Respondents. --------- 3. 3.5.2010 Heard Mr. Bharat Lal for the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha for the respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009(Annexure-8), passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A.445 of 2003 (Ramanand Tuddu Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the order of the learned appellate authority upholding the order of removal from service has been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner had started his service as a Khalasi in the Indian Railways, and was at the relevant point of time 2 functioning as a Junior Engineer. Charge-sheet dated 4.7.1996 was served on him for unauthorized absence for the period 2.9.1995 to 17.5.1996. The petitioner had shown cause to the same enclosing thereto copies of the medical certificates justifying his absence. However, the petitioner refused to appear before the learned Enquiry Officer leading to an ex-parte enquiry report against him, wherein the learned Enquiry Officer found him guilty of unauthorized absence from 2.9.1995 to 17.5.1996. Learned Enquiry Officer also observed in his enquiry report that he was in the habit of absenting himself from duties in unauthorized manner. The learned disciplinary authority passed order of removal from service on 13.8.1998. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected on 7.10.1998. His revision application was also rejected by the appropriate authority. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring the present O.A. No. 445 of 2003, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the departmental authority as well as the learned 3 Tribunal examined the validity of the case made out in the show-cause before the learned Enquiry Officer, and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had submitted two medical certificates about the illness of his wife, issued within a span of four days. Learned departmental authorities as well, as the learned Tribunal, have concurrently held that the medical certificates were inherently contradictory and different ailments were stated in the two medical certificates. They have in substance held that there could not have been change of ailment from Paralysis in the first medical certificate to the ailment of General Anasareae Anaemia in the second medical certificate. It has also been observed that though the employee claims that she was treated in the Railway hospital, records from the hospital have not produced to prove the veracity of the certificate(s). It is relevant to state that both the medical certificates have been issued by the same doctor. In substance, they have found that the medical certificates were false and fabricated for the purpose of his defence. 4. It is relevant to state that the observation of the Medical Officer in the second medical certificate that “…As there was 4 nobody to look after the patient, so her husband was advised to nurse her till recovery. Now she is cured and, therefore, her husband can resume his duty …” This kind of a medical certificate speaking about the domestic affairs of the patient, in contradistinction to the ailment itself, on the face of it speaks of exceeding the limits of a treating physician, and was evidently a purchased one. He can certify only with respect to the ailments, prognosis, and recovery. Paragraph 8 of the order of the learned Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. Dr. K.P. Sinha had issued the medical certificate produced at Annexure-A/4 series dated 10th May, 1996 certifying that the wife of the applicant was suffering from Paralysis and was under his treatment from September 2, 1995 to May 10, 1996. But the same Doctor appears to have issued another Medical Certificate just four days later on 14.5.1996, in which he has certified that the same lady, wife of the applicant, was suffering from General Anasareae Anaemia from 7th October, 1995 to May 14, 1996, and was under his treatment [Annexure-R/1, page 12 of W.S.]. It is further stated in this second Medical Certificate that ”As there was nobody to look after the patient, so her husband was advised to nurse her till recovery. Now she is cured and, therefore, her husband can resume his duty.” This certificate appears to have been produced by the applicant at the time of his resumption of duty on 18.5.1996. On a comparison of the two medical certificates dated May 10, 1996 [Annexure-A/4 series] and Annexure-R/1 [page 12 of W.S.] from 5 the same doctor in respect of the same patient, the contents of both fly in the face of each other. It is impossible to understand as to why and how within a period of four days the same doctor can change even the illness under his treatment as stated in the certificate. Therefore, there is no reason to believe either of them. It is quite clear that the absence of the applicant was willful and deliberate, which he has tried to cover up by obtaining false medical certificate, and when he obtained two such medical certificates from the same doctor, he filed the second of them dated 14.5.1996 before the authorities concerned, who were considerate enough to permit him to join his duty, but while filing this OA, the applicant forgot about the 14.05.1996 certificate, and filed the earlier certificate dated 10.05.1996.” We are mindful of the position that the two medical certificates were part of the show- cause of the petitioner, were not brought on record in course of the enquiry because he did not appear before the learned Enquiry Officer, yet the same has been taken into account by the authorities as well as the learned Tribunal. Such a liberal view has not helped the petitioner. He has really been hoist on his own petard. 5. We are thus convinced that the petitioner was on unauthorized absence from 2.9.1995 to 17.5.1996, had completely failed to inform the authorities about his absence. It is for this reason that the learned Tribunal has observed 6 in paragraph 5 of its order that “…it is surprising that during the whole period he could never find time to inform his superior authorities about the reason of his absence, and to seek leave of absence for the period…” The learned Enquiry Officer has further found and upheld by the learned appellate authority, the learned revisional authority, as well as the learned Tribunal, that he was, apart from the period in question, a habitual absentee. 6. We are convinced in the facts and circumstances of the case that the prescribed procedure was followed, principles of natural justice were observed, and the petitioner did respond to the show-cause notice. We do not find any procedural irregularities in the action of the authorities. We are equally convinced that the order of punishment is the appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of proven charges. We do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)