THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.11709 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Justice B.Prakash Rao) The petitioner, who is an employee of the Railways as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the orders in O.A.No.1678 of 1998, dated 15-2-2000 and the Proceedings No.P/SC/227/H/65, dated 19-6-1998 to set aside the same and for a consequential directions to respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Divisional Medical Officer (Group- A Senior Scale) with effect from the year 1987 when his junior was promoted. Briefly, the facts of the case, which gave rise to the filing of the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer in the year 1980. Further, admittedly, according to the petitioner, he was away from the country on the alleged assignment by Ministry of Health, Medical and Education, Government of Iran from 9-1-1986 to 18-7-1990. It is this absence of the petitioner that gave rise to the problems after he joined back into service on 18-7-1990 after his return to India on assuming the duty. The case of the petitioner in short is to the effect that the said absence was regularised as extra-ordinary leave by the Railway Board as per the proceedings dated 6-11-1997, and therefore, nothing as such could have been initiated against him much less denial or depriving of the retrial benefits or promotion etc., to which he is entitled under the normal circumstances as per the rules. Without referring much of the details as already narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and even in the proceedings before Tribunal, the entire gamut surrounds around the effect of his absence and the enquiry, which has been initiated by the authority by issuance of a charge-memo and the ultimate orders passed therein. There is no dispute to the effect that the charge sheet was issued way back on 4-5-1986, though the factum of which he sought to be denied, but the same was not accepted having regard to the fact that admittedly the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorisedly, and therefore it warranted issuance of later charge-memo on 31-5-1992. There is no variation in between these two charge memos, the later one only reiterates the earlier one. Having regard to the pendency of the proceedings and enquiry, his case was not considered for promotion and it was sought to be put in a sealed cover. The ultimate punishment which resulted in pursuance of the said enquiry was imposition of punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 4 years without cumulative effect by orders dated 21-1-1997. Thereafter, as per the proceedings of the Board his absence was sought to be regularised only with a view to see that the petitioner is not denied of continuity of service, but not otherwise. Therefore, raising several points before the Tribunal it was contended that denial of promotion as such based upon such enquiry and the allegations is not correct and his case was not considered for promotion in a proper perspective. The Tribunal after specifically considering the submissions held that there is no irregularity in the action of the authorities in imposition of punishment, especially, when the petitioner was found absence for un-explained reasons. As regards the promotion is concerned he was not found fit for promotion having regard to the reports as found, especially, that of “below average” and “average”. Therefore, this also was not favoured with by the Tribunal. Though, an attempt was made that no such remarks were communicated to him, however, having regard to the specific Rules existing in the Railways that adverse remarks need not be communicated and can be communicated only under the express instructions of the General Manager, it was held that the applicant has to challenge the rule and get the suitable direction. Ultimately, by taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and in spite of the fact that the authorities have regualrised his unauthorised absence by Railway Board’s letter dated 6-12-1989, the Tribunal held that itself is not sufficient to absolve him from the charge memo and the allegations and the punishment ordered. Therefore, it was held as rightly found from the entire material that the same is perfectly valid and do not call for any interference. On considering the submissions, we do not find that there is any error committed by the Tribunal, much less, perverse to warrant interference as such in exercise of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________​_____ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J) Date:18-2-2011 grk