Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. On the aspect of the writ petitioner's contention regarding protection under Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, 1995, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, has observed that the writ petitioner has not made out a case for disability, supported with material records/certificate and that he had not presented any treatment records before the Medical Board, though his case was referred for the second time. Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that petitioner would give his leave application, fitness certificate/medical certificate, only after prolonged absence. Taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 253 : (2011) 14 SCC 682 and by observing that the writ petitioner is reported to be a habitual absentee without prior leave and therefore', does not deserve any sympathy, the Tribunal declined to quash the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, respectively.

15. Though the orders of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.452 of 2011 dated 17.12.2013 is assailed on several grounds, inviting the attention of this court to Article - III of the Charge Memorandum, wherein, there is reference to habitual absenteeism and the order of the appellate authority holding that such charge ought not to have been mentioned in the charge memo at all and the finding of the appellate authority that the guilt of the third charge as not sustainable, Mr.G.Justin, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that when the charge of habitual absenteeism itself was held as not to have been included, the Tribunal committed an error, in confirming the punishment on such alleged habitual absenteeism.

16. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submitted that, earlier, alleging that the petitioner was in the habit of repeating willful and unauthorised absenteeism and not intimating the reason from 29.05.2001 to 07.06.2001 and for not reporting to the medical authorities, when directed to do so and for other punishments, he was inflicted with a compulsory retirmenet was imposed with effect from 16.09.2002, and that the same was cancelled and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error, in referring the petitioner as a habitual absentee to sustain the penalty of compulsory retirement. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though on the basis of proven charges 1 and 2, the respondents, are always empowered to impose penalty, but the same should be proportionate to the charges and compulsory retirement is disproportionate. According to him, the punishment is disproportionate, and hence required modification.