Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Enclosed please find herewith one telegram received on today from Shri R.Senthilkumar, Rigmar(D), CPF.No.77535, stating that he is under treatment and requested for grant of 3 days leave. In this connection, it is not out of the place to mention that the individual is not attending his duties, w.e.f. 27.11.1998 to till date.
The details of his absence has already been mentioned in the monthly absentee statement. Please do the needful with an intimation to the undersigned."

22. As stated supra, receipt of telegrams from 18.01.1999 to 05.05.1999, has not been disputed. It is true that on 18.01.1999, there is a phonographic message to the petitioner to report for duty and for his absence, he has been cautioned that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. When the Management has expected the telegram sent by them to be responded immediately, failing which, departmental proceedings would be taken against the employee, there is no reason, as to why, telegrams of the petitioner, have not been responded. When the telegram, dated 18.01.1999, is the basis of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the petitioner did not respond, there is no reason, as to why, the Management has also not responded to the telegrams sent by the petitioner. In all the telegrams, the petitioner has intimated that he was under treatment.