Susanta Chatterji, J.@mdashThe writ Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of removal dated September 5, 1985, made by the
Respondent No. 1, Deputy Manager of C.S.T.C. and for declaration to the effect that the Petitioner is deemed to be in continuous service since
October 21, 1986. It is stated in details that the Respondent No. 1 has acted illegally and arbitrarily in not allowing the Petitioner to join his duties
as conductor on receipt from the Petitioner the certificate of fitness granted by the. Medical Officer, Barasat S.D. Hospital. It is, stated that the
Petitioner was absent due to illness and the chargesheet was issued against him on wrong promises and fictitious allegations.
2. The writ petition is opposed by the Respondent authority by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is disclosed that show-cause notice No.
1636/SLD/1D.-25/86-87 dated October 21, 1986, was issued against the Petitioner for absenting himself from duty since May 29, 1986,
unauthorisedly and without prior intimation. It is stated that the Petitioner lost his lien in service with effect from September 5, 1986, after having
exhausted leave and extra-ordinary leave as per existing rules and regulations of the Corporation. The Petitioner is alleged to have violated the
provisions of Reg. 25 of Calcutta State Transport Employees Service Regulation. It is contended that the Petitioner was afforded all reasonable
opportunities of hearing and all the charges were proved and the order of removal is justified.
3. The Petitioner has, however, filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the points raised in the writ petition and controverting the allegations. Having
heard the learned lawyers of the respective parties at length and upon perusal of the materials on record the Court finds that admittedly the
Petitioner was absent. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted. A departmental proceeding was started. There is nothing wrong or illegality in the notice
to show cause, charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceeding, but this Court is of the view that the order of removal is not commensurate with the
offence as allegedly done by, the Petitioner. Interpretation of Reg. 25 of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation
is not correct in the manner as done in the instant case. The order of removal appears to be excessive and not in conformity with the rules and
regulations. Absence has been explained by the Petitioner and it was beyond his control to join.
4. Considering this aspect the impugned order of removal is set aside. This order will not, however, prevent the Respondent to pass any other
penalty by retaining the service of the Petitioner. No order as to costs.
5. Parties to act on the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
