Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Awasari ... vs Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar And Ors on 10 March, 2016
33. In my view, in this case, there is no dispute that the
respondent no.1 was issued several notices from time to time by the
::: Uploaded on - 07/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2016 00:49:21 :::
ppn 16 wp-4903.16 (j).doc
enquiry committee to remain present and the headmaster of the
petitioner no.1 school also personally had called the respondent no.1 to
attend the enquiry proceedings, the respondent no.1 however on one or
the other pretext failed to remain present before the enquiry committee.
When an employee chose to remain absent deliberately or intentionally
before the enquiry committee in the enquiry proceedings inspite of
opportunities having been given to him, he cannot be allowed to
challenge the enquiry proceedings on merits. I am thus not inclined to
accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that
the respondent no.1 did not remain present in the enquiry proceedings
unintentionally. The judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of
Ranjan Kumar Mitra Vs.Andrew Yule & Co.Ltd. & Ors. (supra) and
Bank of India Vs. Apurba Kumar Saha (supra) squarely apply to the
facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.