Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19168 HC-KAR specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3-10-1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of telephone calls dated 29- 9-1995, etc. but such defence and evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the inquiry officer held the appellant guilty."

21. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was wilful, no such finding has been given by the inquiry officer or the appellate authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3-10- 1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of telephone calls dated 29- 9-1995, etc. but such defence and evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the inquiry officer held the appellant guilty.

22. Mr P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur, who was the complainant and against whom the appellant alleged bias refused to appear before the inquiry

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19168 HC-KAR officer in spite of service of summons. Two other witnesses, Shri Jivrani and Shri L.N. Thakkar made no statement against the appellant, and one of them stated that he had no knowledge about the absence of the appellant. Ignoring the aforesaid evidence, on the basis of surmises and conjectures, the inquiry officer held the charge proved."