S/L. 46.
August 17, 2015.
MNS.
W. P. S. T. No. 114 of 2012 Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta, Mr. Subhas Jana for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya for the State.
Affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today is taken on record.
The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1999 and without any leave application he remained absent for 173 days from 2001. Several notices were issued by the authorities and have been duly served upon him, but no reply was tendered. Thereafter, in the month of June, 2002 proceeding was initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer, who had framed the charges and the Enquiry Officer also served the notice, which was duly received by the petitioner himself and the said notice are already on record and also bears the signature of the petitioner, but the petitioner chooses not to associate him with the said enquiry and thus, the enquiry was proceeded ex parte and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after going through the charges so levelled against the petitioner and evidence on record.
On the basis of the enquiry report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority further issued a show cause notice to which reply was also not tendered and having no alternative the petitioner was discharged from service. The said order of discharge was assailed by the petitioner by preferring a departmental appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed resulting in filing an application before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after going through the records and the affidavit so exchanged recorded a finding that the petitioner deliberately avoided himself from associating with the enquiry and further he failed to tender any reply to the notice so issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal confirmed the order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this writ petition before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that the charges so approved by the Enquiry Officer was not duly proved. It has also been urged that there is no finding to the effect recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the absence of the petitioner was deliberate.
In support of the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Dilip Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal and others reported in (2012) 3 WBLR(Cal) 291 and the State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 whereby the Apex Court has specifically held that the Enquiry Officer acting in quasi-judicial authority, is in the position of an independent adjudicator and his function is to examine evidence presented by department, even in absence of delinquent official to see as to whether unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that charges are proved.
On perusal of the report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer it reflects that witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and they had stated specifically that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The petitioner also failed to bring to the notice of any authorities or the Tribunal that he was suffering from Schizophrenia. Right from the June, 2002 when the enquiry was initiated and further he was not in his senses though he has put his signatures on the duplicate copies of notices so served by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. It is amazing that when the enquiry was initiated in the year of June, 2002 he was suffering from Schizophrenia, but when the notice of discharge was served upon him on November 27, 2002 he immediately regained senses and approached the authorities by filing an appeal before the appellate authority.
In view of the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has deliberately remained absent from duties as reported by the Enquiry Officer in his report submitted before Disciplinary Authority.
We do not find illegality or perversity of the order so passed by any of the authorities as well as the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(Rajiv Sharma, J.) (Shivakant Prasad, J.)