Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Then on 3.10.94, it was again sent to the Post Master, Bahraich with a direction that it may be served by Head Post Man. It was again received back with an endorsement that the applicant had refused to take the registered post. Report of Head Postman dated 7.10.94 was also enclosed , saying that on 6.10.94, during noon, while the applicant Sri Ambrish Kumar Mishra was sitting in the Accounts Branch, he was asked to receive the registered post but he said that he would not receive it till that time his GPF is passed and his pending medical bills are also passed. The Head Post Master also endorsed that on 7.10.94, Sri Ambrish Kumar Mishra, the applicant again met him and he again requested him to receive the registered post. The applicant however, refused to take it saying that he regularly receives only those registered posts which are according to his need. After considering these points, the disciplinary authority examined the whole enquiry report and found that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry on the following dates i.e. on 11.2.94, 18.2.1994, 1.3.1994, 15.3.1994, 31.3.1994, 14.4.1994, 29.4.1994, 16.5.1994 , 2.6.1994, 21.6.1994 , 7.7.1994 and 15.7.1994. Out of the aforesaid dates, the applicant also appeared only on 14.4.1994 and 16.5.1994. Thereafter, on 16.5.1994, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of three witnesses and the applicant also appended his signature below those statements, but he refused to sign order sheet No. 8 of 16.5.1994. The Enquiry Officer has also mentioned in the order sheet that on the aforesaid dates, on which the applicant did not appear , the Enquiry Officer had sent the notice to the applicant which were received back with remark that the applicant either hides himself or avoids to receive those registered letters. On one occasion, when a register letter No. 4899 dated 22.2.94 was sent in respect of fixing enquiry for 1.3.1994 and when the Postman went to serve it, the applicant seeing the Postman coming towards him, immediately stood up and went to the market side. It has already been said that on 14.4.1994, while he was present in the enquiry he was informed about the next date i.e. 29.4.1994 and a copy of the proceedings was also given to him and he was also asked to attend the enquiry on 29.4.1994 at the relevant time and place, failing which the enquiry shall be proceeded with ex-parte. Even then he did not come on 29.4.1994. In view of the above, the disciplinary authority was of the view that except on two dates, the applicant has deliberately avoided to be present in the enquiry.. All the possible efforts were made to procure his attendance but the applicant did not pay any heed and therefore, the continuance of remaining enquiry as ex-parte was found to be justified by the disciplinary authority and rightly so. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority discussed each and every charges vis-`-vis the evidence adduced in respect thereof and ultimately he agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. After that, he passed the order of dismissal on 31.10.1994/ 8.11.1994, which has been impugned