Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable Randheer Singh Yadav vs Govt. Of N.C.T.D on 12 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 2438/2009 New Delhi this the 12th Day of July, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR.KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A) Constable Randheer Singh Yadav DAP No.7419, 307/DRP, aged-33 years S/O Shri Ram Chandra Yadav, R/o Village Majri Khurd, P.O. Majri Kalan, PS.Mandhan,District-Alwar(Rajasthan).. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chauhan) Versus
1. Govt. of N.C.T.D. Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime, Delhi.
Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime & Railways, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri B.N.P.Pathak) Order(Oral) In this Original Application, the Applicant has challenged the orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him culminated in his dismissed from service. The charge against the Applicant is as under:-
it is alleged against Const. Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP (PIS No. 28941637) that while posted in IIIrd Bn.DAP he was required for duty on 31.05.2004 but he did not turn up and was marked absent vide DD No. 5-B dated 31.5.2004. He resumed his duty vide DD No. 63-B dated 25.11.2004 after absenting himself for a period of 178 days, 13 hours and 30 munitues willfully and unauthorisedly, which is violation of CCS (Leave) Rule,1972 and S.O. No.111/88 of Delhi Police. In this regard a show cause notice for treating the absence period as not spent on duty was issued to him vide No.15119/ASIP-III Bn.DAP dated 31/12/2004 and the same has been withdrawn on administrative grounds without any prejudice to take disciplinary action in the matter, vide order No.5533/ASIP-III Bn.DAP dated 09.05.2005.
During his absence period the following absentee notices were set at his residence through Regd. Post with the direction to resume his duty at once or in case of sickness he was further directed to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical examination failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him.
Sl.No. Absentee Notices Remarks
1. 11458-461/ASIP-III Bn DAP Dt. 22/9/04 A copy of absence notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post, which is deemed to be served upon the Constable. Otherwise the same would have been returned to this office undelivered with the remarks of postal authority. But it is not received back in this office.
2. 12925/ASIP-III Bn DAP dt. 27.10.2004. A copy of absentee notice was sent at his residence back with the remarks that BAR-BAR JANE PAR BHI PRAPT KARTA NAHI MILA. It is further alleged that he was required for duty on 7-12-04 at VPL/III Bn.DAP at 6-30 AM but he did not turn up in time. He was marked absent vide DD No.2_B dated 7-12-04. He resumed his duty on 8-4-05 vide DDNo.33-B after absenting himself for a period for 122 days, 5 hours and 26 minutes willfully and unauthorisedly.
During his absence period the following absentee notices were sent at his residence through Regd. Post with the direction to resumed his duty at once or in case of sickness he was further directed to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical examination failing which, disciplinary action will be taken against him.
His past absentee record also shows that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type of person as has absented himself on 48 different occasions in the past and despite award of various punishments, he did not mend himself.
The above fact on the part of Const. Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP amount to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties which renders him liable for departmental action under Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
2. After conducting a regular departmental enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report stating that the charge against the Applicant has been proved. The operative part of the said report is as under:-
1. While posted in 3rd Bn DAP the defaulter was required for duty on 31/5/2004 but he did not turn up on duty and was marked absent vide DD No. SB dt.31/5/2004 and resumed duty vide DD No. 63-B dt.25/11/2004 after absenting for a period of 178 days 13 hours and 30 minutes willfully and unauthorisedly which is violation of S.O. No. 111/88 of Delhi Police.
2. That he was required for duty on 7/12/2004 at VPL/3rd BN DAP at 6.30 AM but he did not turn up on 8/4/2005 vide DD No. 33 B after absenting for a period of 122 days, 5 hours and 26 minutes willfully and unauthorisedly.
3. That absentee notice were sent at his residence (Native place) by Regd. Post with direction to resume duty at once or in case of sickness he was directed to appear before C.M.O. Alwar Rajasthan for 2nd Medical examination but he neither resumed duty nor appeared before CMO/Alwar(Rajasthan) for second medical examination.
In the DE proceedings total 2 PWs were examined who is brief stated as under:-
PW-1 Ct.Ajay Kumar No.2327/DAP 3rd Bn DAP Vikas Puri,Delhi produced original Roznamcha having DDNo.5B dt. 31/5/2004. DDNo.63 B dt.25/11/2004 DD No.2B dt.7/12/2004 and DD No.33 B dt.8/4/2005 DAP 3rd Bn DAP Vikas Puri relating absentee record of the defaulter, which are Ex. PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D. PW-2 Ct.Rajeev Kumar No.2609/DAP is posted in SIP/3rd Bn DAP, Vikas Puri, New Delhi stated that as per previous record of Const.Randhir Singh, No.7419/DAP he has remained absent for 48 times in the past and that absentee period has been decided. He has seen the absentee notices issued by the office of DCP/3rd Bn DAP which are marked Ex.PW-2/B to Ex.PW-2/G. Now coming to the charge in question it is a fact that Ct.Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP was on 31/5/2004 posted in DAP 3rd Bn DAP Vikas Puri, New Delhi and was required for duty on 31/5/2004 but the defaulter Const.Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP did not turn up for duty and was marked absent vide DDNo.5B dt. 31/5/2004 which is Ex.PW-1/A and resumed duty vide 63-B dt.25/11/2004 which Ex.PW-1/B after absenting himself for a period of 178 days 13 hours and 30 minutes willfully and unauthorisedly which is violation of S.O. No. 111/88 of Delhi Police. The defaulter has plead that he was seriously ill and got treatment from Verma Hospital Rewari from 1/6/2004 to 9/7/2004 39 days and from 10/7/2004 to 29/9/2004 for 82 days and on 29/9/2004 Dr.Verma Hospital advised him Now he is physically fit and he can join his duty on 30/9/2004 but on the contrary instead of joining duty on 30/9/2004 he went to C.G.H.S. dispensary situated at N.P.L. Kingsway Camp New Delhi on 1/10/2004 and took Medical rest by the Doctor/C.G.H.S. Dispensary. It is worth mentioning that he remained absent on 31/5/2004 from duty at DAP 3rd Bn DAP and if he was seriously ill why he did not go for out door or nearby Govt. Hospital/CGHS Dispensary in Delhi. It is amazing that he went to Rewari private Verma Hospital for Medicine without seeking permission from competent authority. It is further added that as per Dr.Verma Hopsital Rewari he was fit to join duty on 30/9/2004 but he did not join on that day. He should have joint duty on 30/9/2004 as he was fit to resume duty and if felt unwell he should have seek prior permission to go Govt. Hospital/C.G.H.S Dispensary nearby Viaks Puri area or his dispensary where his card is made for but ignoring all the facts he went to CGHS Dispensary NPL Kingway Camp, Delhi which is far away from Vikas Puri with ulterior motive and reason best known to him.
Secondly, he was required for duty on 7/12/2004 at VPL/3rd BN DAP at 6.30 AM but he did not turn up for duty and marked absent vide DD No.2B dt.7/12/2004 and resumed duty on 8/4/2005 vide DD No.33 B after absenting for a period of 122 days 5 hours and 26 minutes willfully and unauthorisedly. In his defence he has submitted photocopy of medical w.e.f. 18/12/2004 to 26/12/2004 and 27/12/2004 to 10/1/2005 vide O.P.D.No.5426 dt.27/12/2004 issued from Govt. Hospital Alawar.
Notice were sent at his home address which are Ex PW-2/B to Ex.PW-2/G but the defaulter ignored all the notices PW-1 Ct. Ajay Kumar has corroborated the facts that Ct.Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP remained absent vide Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D and PW-2 Ct.Rejeev Kumar has stated that absentee notices were sent to the defaulter which are Ex.PW-2/B to Ex.PW-2/G and also stated that Ct.Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP remained absent for 48 times previously and that absence period has been decided which is Ex.PW-2/A. Absentee Notices were sent at his residence by Regd.Post with direction to resume duty at once or in case of sickness he was directed to appear before CMO Alwar (Rajasthan) for 2nd Medical examination but he neither resumed duty nor appeared before CMO/Alwar for second medical examination. Taking into consideration, the facts on file and circumstances and totality of the case it is proved beyond doubt that Const. Randir Singh, No.7419/DAP remained absent willfully and unauthorisedly for 178 days and 122 days which is on record vide Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/D. Absentee notices were sent at his residence by Regd. Post with the direction to resume duty at once and if sick he was directed to appear before CMO/Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical examination, hence the charge against the defaulter are proved beyond doubt.
CONCLUSION:
From the above discussion, the deposition of the witnesses, the record produced in the DE proceedings, record available on file, the defence statement of the defaulter and in view of the above detailed discussion, the charge against the defaulter Const. Randhir Singh, No.7419/DAP (PIS No. 28941637) is substantiated.
3. After receipt of a copy of the enquiry report, the applicant made a representation against the same to the authority. His contention was that he as well as his daughter was unwell and he had submitted the requisite Medical Certificate through registered letters but the Enquiry Officer has not taken them into consideration. According to him he was suffering from Typhoid, Jaundice and viral fever and requested the Respondents to treat his absence period from 31.5.2004 to 24.11.2005 as not spent on duty. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed upon him the punishment for dismissal from service. The relevant part of the said order is as under:-
I have carefully gone through the statements of PWs defence statement findings of the EO written submission of the defaulter Constable and other material available on record. The defaulter Constable was required for duty on 31-5-2004 but he did not turn up and absented himself for a period of 178 days 13 hours and 30 minutes on 1st occasion and 122 days, 5 hours and 26 months on 2nd occasion when he was required for duty on 07-12-2004. On both the occasions, the defaulter constable did not get permission of the competent authority at any stage to avail the medical rest and violated the provisions of C.C.S.(Leave)Rules 1972 and S.O. No.111 of Delhi Police. Absentee notices were set at his home address with the direction to resume duty at once, or in case of sickness to appear before CMO/Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical examination. It appears that the defaulter Constable does not want to perform duty, as he was declared fit to join duty on 30-9-2004 by the Dr.Verma Hospital Rewari, but instead of joining his duty he went to CGHS Dispensary situated at NPL Kingsway Camp, New Delhi on 1-10-2004 and took Medical rest from the CGHS Dispensary. The absence of defaulter Constable on both the occasions are unathorised, willful and he was not actually ill. He appears to have managed the medical certificate only to cover his absence. The defaulter constable has also not produced any documents in support of his illness before the enquiry officer. His previous absence on 48 different occasions also establish that he is an incorrigible Police Personnel and did not mend himself as several chances were afforded to him after awarding minor/major punishment. He was dismissed from service on the same ground but the appellate authority afforded a chance to him to change his attitude and perform Government duties assigned to him properly. But the defaulter Constable instead of changing his attitude rather proved to be a habitual absentee and an incorrigible type of Constable.
Absence from duty is a serious misconduct and unbecoming of a member of a discipline force and a liability on the dependent. This is blatant violation of C.C.S.(Leave) Rules, 1972 and SO No.111 of Delhi Police. This I am of the considered view that the defaulter constable is not willing to serve in the disciplined force. His continuance in the force will spread indiscipline in the force. Hence, he deserves strict disciplinary action. Therefore his further retention in the force is totally unwanted and will be burden on the state exchequer. His acts of habitual absenteeism which stand proved in this departmental enquiry have rendered himself unfit for duty in the Delhi Police department.
Therefore keeping in view the above discussion, I, A.S.Cheema, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime and Railways, Delhi hereby dismiss defaulter Constable Randhir Singh No.7419/DAP from the service with immediate effect. His absence period as mentioned above is also decided as period not spent on duty.
4. The statutory appeal filed by the Applicant was also rejected after due consideration. The Annexure A-3 order of the Appellate Authority dated 10.9.2008 reads as under-
The facts of the case clearly prove that the appellant had absented himself from duty unauthorizedly, willfully and without any proper permission of the competent authority. The appellant was required for duty on 31.05.04, but he did not turn up and absented himself for a period of 178 days, 13 hours and 30 minutes on Ist occasion and 122 days, 5 hours and 26 months on 2nd occasion when he was required for duty on 07-12-04. On both the occasions, the appellant did not obtain prior permission of the competent authority at any state to avail medical rest at his home and thus violated the provisions of C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111/88 of Delhi Police. Absentee notices were sent at him home address with the directions to resume duty or report to CMO, Alwar, Rajasthan.
His previous absence on 44 different occasions also establish that he is an incorrigible type of constable and did not mend himself even several opportunities were afforded to him by awarding minor/major punishments. He was removed from the service on same grounds, but the Appellate Authority afforded a chance to him to change his attitude and perform Govt. duties assigned to him properly. But, the appellant instead of improving his attitude rather proved to be a habitual absentee and an incorrigible type of constable.
Unauthorized and willful absence from duty is a serious misconduct and unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force which can not be countenance with. This conduct is a blatant violation of C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111/88 of Delhi Police. Thus, I am of the considered view that the appellant is not willing to serve in the disciplined force and his continuance in the force will spread indiscipline in the force. His retention in the department will send a wrong message to the others. His acts of habitual absenteeism which stands proved in this departmental enquiry have rendered himself unfit for duty in the Police Department.
In view of above, the pleas taken by the appellant are found to be of no justification or relevance. The orders, passed by the disciplinary authority are just, legal, in speaking order and based on facts and not on presumptive line. No violation of principles of natural justice has been noticed in the order. Hence, the punishment awarded to the appellant is commensurate to the gravity of his misconduct and decision of the disciplinary authority needs no interference. Hence, the appeal is hereby rejected.
5. The applicant challenged the aforesaid report/orders on various grounds. One of the grounds taken by the applicant is that the show cause notice dated 13.12.2004 issued to him regarding his absence of 178 days from 31.5.2004 to 25.11.2004 was withdrawn vide letter dated 09.5.2005 without any justified reasons and said action was against the Respondents own instructions No.9 below Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which reads as under:-.
(9) Reasons for cancellation of original charge sheet to be mentioned if for issuing a fresh charge sheet It is clarified that once the proceedings initiated under Rule 14 or Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, are dropped, the Disciplinary Authorities would be debarred from initiating fresh proceedings against the Delinquent Officers unless the reasons for cancellation of the original charge sheet or for dropping the proceedings are appropriately mentioned and it is duly stated in the order that the proceedings were being dropped without prejudice to further action may be considered in the circumstances of the case. It is therefore, important that when the intension is to issue a subsequent fresh charge sheet, the order cancelling the original one or dropping the proceedings should be carefully worded so as to mention the reasons for such an action and indicating the intention of issuing a subsequent charge sheet appropriate to the nature of charge the same was based on.
6. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in OA-2534/2005 Ganesh Prashad Vs. Govt.NCT of Delhi & Ors. The relevant part of the said OA is as under:-
27. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are in a respectful agreement with the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Amar Chand & Ors V. Jt.Commissioner of Police & Ors.(supra) that the departmental enquiry conducted against the applicant after withdrawing the show cause notice without giving specific reasons has prejudiced the defence of the applicant and is patently violative of the provisions of the aforementioned GOI Instruction No.(9) below Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which have been made (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 by the respondents own circular dated 28.4.1993 noted. Such an action is not sustainable under the law.
28. In the result, the OA is partly allowed and the disciplinary proceedings at serial nos.(A) to (E) mentioned in the opening para of this order are quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. He has also relied upon another judgment of this Tribunal in OA-2176 Amar Chand & Ors. V. Jt. Commissioner of Police & Ors. The relevant part of the said OA is as under:
17. On the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the fresh departmental enquiry conducted against the applicants after withdrawing the show case notice without giving specific reasons and without reserving the right or liberty to order fresh enquiry is patently violative of the provisions of the aforesaid note No.9 below Rule 15 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 which are made applicable to the departmental enquiries under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rulels,1980 by the decision of the Tribunal dated 31.1.1992 in Harbhajan Singhs case (supra) and the respodnents own circular dated 28.4.1993 (Annexure F) noted earlier. Such an action is not sustainable under the law.
18. In the view which is taken by us regarding the crucial main ground urged by the applicants, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the other ground and contentions raised by them in this OA.
19. In the result, the impugned report of the enquiry officer dated 23.3.1998 (Annexure M) the order of the disciplinary authority dated 25.5.1998 (Annexure A) and the appellate authoritys order dated 4.9.1998(Annexure B) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take necessary steps to restore the concerned increment to the applicants with effect from the date on which it had fallen due under the Rules and also grant them all consequential benefits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. The OA is allowed as above.
8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the medical certificate submitted by him has not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. According to him during the enquiry though he has submitted photocopy of the medical certificate for the period of absence, yet the disciplinary authority has stated that he had not submitted any medical certificate in its order. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the Order of a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA-2388/2003 Shri Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India wherein it was held as under:-
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perusal of the material placed on record. It is trite law that once a Govt. servant tenders medical certificate issued by an authorize medical authority, the quasi-judicial authority on administrative side is not an expert body either to comment about the reliability or genuineness of the certificate. As per Rule 19(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules,1972 in case of doubt, when a person produced certificate, the competent authority to grant leave at his discretion can verify the genuineness of the medical record, and to ascertain the reliability of the ground of illness of Govt. servant can send the concerned for medical examination before a civil surgeon for second opinion, only thereafter comment on genuineness of medical record has to be made.
10. In the present case whereas only on the basis that two communication addressed to the applicant had come back undelivered with the remarks that the addressee was not available and the house was locked, cannot be a conclusive presumption to the effect that the applicants ground of absence i.e. illness is not reliable. A medical certificate unless proved to be fictitious, forged, and procured to make a pretext of illness, the competent authority in its discretion cannot hold such a view without subjecting the person to a second medical examination, as being a non-expert competent authority cannot decide the reliability or genuineness of the certificate. This discretion in the present case has not been exercised judiciously. Moreover, as per Article 81 (d) Clause (1), there would a provision for loss of lien only when an employee remains absent without sanction of leave, but as per Clause (b) if a satisfactory explanation is tendered on expiry of leave that absence was beyond the control, the authority would not confirm the loss of lien. Whereas in the present case as per Para-7 of the 81 (d) of the Education Code, the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal was required to specifically pass an order as to whether the requirements to sub-clause (1) of Rule 81 (d) has been complied with or not.
11. It is trite law that principles of natural justice are implicit in the rules and even if any rule relating to disciplinary proceedings and punishment does not incorporate these principles, the same would be read as part of the rule by necessary implication. The aforesaid dicta has been settled by the Apex court in State Govt. Houseless Harijan Employees Association vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2001 (1) SCC 610).
9. Respondents have filed their reply refuting all the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant. They have stated that in both spells of unathorised absence, the Applicant was directed through registered letters that he should report for duty forthwith or to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan) for Medical examination. He was also informed that if he fails to do so, disciplinary proceedings will be taken against him. Despite the issue of those absentee notices, the applicant neither resumed his duty nor appeared before Chief Medical Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical examination. On both the occasions, his absence from duty was willful and unauthorised. He did not get permission of the competent authority at any stage to avail the medical rest and violated the provision of C.C.S.(Leave) Rules, 1972 and SO No.111 of Delhi Police. As his absence from duty was a serious misconduct, unbecoming of a member in the discipline force and he has become a liability for the department, the disciplinary authority came to the considered view that he was not willing to serve the Respondents department any more. It also held that his continuance in service would spread indiscipline in the force. His act of habitual absenteeism which has also been proved in this departmental enquiry has rendered himself unfit for duty in the Delhi Police. Therefore, the disciplinary authority after having gone through the findings of EO, representation of the applicant, departmental enquiry file and other relevant material available on record, awarded him the punishment of dismissal from service and his absence period was decided as period not spent on duty vide order No.3486-3584/HAP/C&R dated 14.9.2006. The appeal submitted by the applicant against the punishment order was considered by the Addl. Commissioner of Police/Crime, Delhi but found having no reason to interfere with the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the appeal was rejected vide order No. 433-436/SO/Addl.CP/Crime date 10.9.2008. Hence, this OA.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. We do not find the impugned show cause notice, the enquiry officers report, the disciplinary authoritys order and finally the appellate authoritys order suffer from any legal or procedural infirmities. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in challenging the aforesaid documents are absolutely baseless. Undoubtedly, unauthorized absence from duty in a disciplined force is a matter of very serious misconduct and it cannot be tolerated at any cost. In this case, it is proved beyond doubt during the departmental enquiry that the Applicant has been a habitual absentee. The last two spells of his unauthorized and willful absence from duty for 178 days and 122 days respectively have finally forced the Respondents in initiating disciplinary action against him which culminated in his dismissal from service. On both occasions, immediately prior to his absence from duty on 31.5.2004 and 7.12.2004, he was on duty with the III Bn DAP, Delhi and VPL/III Bn Delhi respectively. Suddenly, he disappeared from Delhi on both occasions and reached his home in Rajasthan. It is the basic requirement of any Govt. servant to take permission from the supervising authority before he leaves the station of his posting. In this case, leave alone prior permission, the Applicant has not even informed his Superior officer of his intention remain absent from duty. Secondly, if the Applicants contention that he needed immediate Medical attentions is correct, being a CGHS beneficiary why he wanted to travel all the way from Delhi to a far away place at Rewari to get treatment. When Delhi, being the capital of the country, have all medical facilities available, the applicant has chosen to take treatment from a relatively unknown institution known as Verma Hospital at Jharjhar Road, Rewari. According to the documents submitted by the Applicant himself, the doctor in the said hospital has advised him to join duty on 30.9.2004 but he did not do so. He joined at his own will, only on 25.11.2004.
11. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the show cause notice dated 15.12.2004 issued to the Applicant was withdrawn vide letter dated 09.5.2005 and therefore, no further disciplinary proceedings could have been taken against him on that count, his reliance on the instruction No. 9 below Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the Orders of the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Ganesh Prasad s case (supra) and Amar Chands case (supra) is of no use, they have no application in this cases. It is on record that the show cause notice was dropped explicitly for taking disciplinary action against the applicant.
11. In view of the above position, this OA is devoid of any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Khushiram ) (G.George Paracken) Member(A) Member(J)
RB (They have further stated that the past absentee record of the applicant also shows that he was a habitual absentee and an incorrigible type of person as he has absented himself on 48 different occasions in the past and despite award of various punishment, the applicant did not mend himself)