Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. That after about two months of his joining, respondent no. 3 issued a show-cause notice dated 25 th October, 1996 treating the period 30/07/1996 to 22/08/1996 as unauthorized willful absence and proposed the punishment for stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Copy of the show-cause notice is annexed as Annexure A-8.

5. Petitioner filed reply to the said show-cause notice and submitted that the petitioner had joined at Bhopal on 22 nd July, 1996 without availing joining time of 14 days. The posting order was not served on him and he came to know about the posting order only on 16/08/96 that too orally through Orderly "Shri Chhotelal". He already submitted an application for leave to regularize the said period and the leave has also been sanctioned for the said period by order dated 9/10/96.

9. There is no material or record to indicate that petitioner was avoiding the order of posting or he was having the knowledge of the same and, thereafter, he intentionally did not join in pursuant to the posting order in Raisen. The joining of the petitioner at Bhopal on 22/07/96 after relieving from Balaghat on 17/07/96 is itself sufficient to prove that he was not reluctant to leave Balaghat and to join at the transferred place. It is further contended that the Disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are under obligation and bound to hold a summary enquiry as envisaged under Rule 16 of Rules 1966 and pass an order of punishment only after recording a finding that the charge is proved. It is contended that once, the period from 30/07/96 to 22/08/96 was regularized by sanctioning leave, the authorities could not have treated the same as a misconduct and to pass an order of punishment.