Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It was the case of the respondent that vide office memorandum dated 20.01.2014, the respondent was asked to explain the reasons for appearing in various courts without any application for leave and without seeking permission. The details of dates for the year 2012 - 2014 on which he appeared in the courts were also furnished to him and it was stated in the memorandum that he used to remain absent from office unauthorizedly. The reply dated 23.01.2014 was filed by him stating therein that he had attended the courts with the blanket permission by his superior officer Mr R.K. Jain, the Chief Engineer (HQ). Moreover, Mr Jain himself advised him that attending court in respect of service matter with NWDA was a part of official duty. However, later on Mr Jain harassed him for calling him a corrupt officer in the appointment of nine LDCs during the year 2011 and for making RTI questions against his functioning. By memorandum dated 05.02.2014, he was informed that he was never advised that he could attend the court for his personal cases without submission of leave application and he had developed the habit of making false allegations against his superiors. He was also called upon to explain within 3 days as to why the period of his absence from office may not be declared as „unauthorized absence‟ and the principle of „no work no pay‟ be implemented However, no reply was submitted. Again by the subsequent office memorandum dated 27.02.2014, he was informed W.P.(C) 9278/2015 Pa ge 2 of 12 that remaining absent from office for the purpose of going to Courts amounts to unauthorized absence but he again remained absent from office on 27.07.2013, 30.09.2013 and 11.02.2014 and he was given last opportunity to explain as to why the days‟ of his absence from office be not declared as unauthorized absence besides taking disciplinary action against him. By reply dated 28.02.2014 the respondent had submitted that attending court proceedings cannot be treated as unauthorized absence when the same has been done with permission. Thereafter, by a memorandum dated 11.04.2014 it was proposed to treat the days of his unauthorized absence of 97 days as „dies non‟ in terms of FR-18 and he was denied pay and allowances on the principle of „no work no pay‟ in terms of FR-17(1). Further, in terms of FR-17-A, it was decided to treat the 97 days on which he remained absent unauthorizedly as interruption or break in service. He was given an opportunity to submit his representation, if any, against the proposed action within a period of five working days and an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desired. He submitted a reply dated 15.04.2014 stating that Mr S.M. Husain, Director General, NWDA, Mr R.K. Jain, CE (HQ) & CVO, Mr JSS Satry, Consultant (Admn.) and Mr Y.D. Vats, Deputy Director (Admn.) were prejudiced against him for having been a whistleblower and for exposing the illegality committed by some of the officers of NWDA. As regards the proposal to treat 97 days as „dies non‟, he stated that it should have been initiated within a reasonable time immediately after 19.01.2012 and initiating it after a period of two years is an afterthought action in order to take revenge against him for the complaints made by him W.P.(C) 9278/2015 Pa ge 3 of 12 against Mr R.K. Jain, CE (HQ) & CVO, Mr JSS Satry, Consultant (Admn.) and Mr Y.D. Vats , Deputy Director (Admn.). He further stated that it was a false proposal without considering the vital documents of biometric attendance system and monthly absentee statement of immediate superior. As regards granting him opportunity of being heard by Mr S.K. Husain, DG, NWDA, he submitted that since Mr Hussain was prejudiced against him as such he does not hope to get any justice from him. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 was passed. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: