Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.@mdashThe writ petition impugns the award dated 22nd January 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:
Whether the services of Sh. Suresh S/o Sh. Pistola have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
2. The Industrial Adjudicator first framed an issue as to the fairness and compliance of principles of natural justice in the departmental inquiry held by the Respondent preceding the order of termination of the Petitioner and vide order dated 15th January, 2008 held that the departmental inquiry was fair, proper and conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Industrial Adjudicator thereafter vide award dated 22nd January, 2008 impugned in this writ petition held that the penalty imposed on the Petitioner was proportionate to the charges of which the Petitioner had been found guilty.
3. The Petitioner was charged with unauthorized absence from duty from 11th January, 1997 to 24th January, 1997, 4th February, 1997 to 27th February, 1997, 3rd March, 1997 to 25th May, 1997, 28th May, 1997, 2nd June, 1997 to 21st July, 1998, 23rd July, 1998 to 19th July, 2001, 21st July, 2001 to 23rd January, 2002 and 9th January, 2003 to 2nd February, 2003.
4. An Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted receipt of charge sheet along with list of witnesses and document and admitted the charge. The only defence statement offered in his admittal of the charge was that during the period of absence, the Petitioner had remained ill and heavily upset due to bad evils; that the reason for remaining heavily upset was the unfortunate demise of his two sons aged 4 and 6 years. It was also stated that the Petitioner belonged to poor Scheduled Caste family and being low paid as well as illiterate, he did not know the Rules & Regulations. The Petitioner sought pardon for his guilt and offered assurance that he would in future not remain absent from duty.
5. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report reporting admittance of charge by the Petitioner and accordingly finding the Petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence. The two Medical Certificates issued by the Petitioner for the period 11th January, 1997 to 27th February, 1997 and from 13th January, 1997 to 21st May, 1997 were held to have been proved.
6. The Disciplinary Authority of the Respondent Delhi Jal Board (DJB) imposed the punishment aforesaid of removal of service.
7. The contention of the counsel for the Petitioner is that the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator of inquiry being fair and in compliance of principles of natural justice is erroneous. It is contended that the Petitioner had only admitted the factum of his unauthorized absence and not his guilt. It is contended that the Inquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to the Petitioner to prove the reason for his absence.
8. In this regard it may be noticed that the Industrial Adjudicator has in order 15th January, 2008 (supra) held that the Petitioner in the cross-examination of the witnesses of the Respondent DJB did not even give any suggestion that the inquiry conducted was not fair or proper or not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It thus appears that there was no challenge really to the inquiry proceedings before the Industrial Adjudicator as made before this Court. Even otherwise, reading of the statement made by the Petitioner before the Inquiry Officer shows that the Petitioner did not give any particulars of treatment of ailment from which he remained ill or of demise of his two children or any explanation for the long time of four years for which he had remained absent.
9. The counsel for the Respondent DJB appearing on advance notice has contended that with such long unauthorized absence of employees, the Respondent DJB cannot be expected to function efficiently. He has also referred to DTC v. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 374. Though in the said judgment the observations were made in the context of the standing orders of the DTC but the spirit thereof is that unauthorized absence amounts to misconduct.
10. The counsel for the Petitioner has been unable to show that any opportunity for proving the reasons for absence was sought before the Inquiry Officer. Rather, the Petitioner had unequivocally admitted the charge and had sought pardon and lenient view of the matter to be taken. No error can thus be found with the order of the Industrial Adjudicator on the validity of the inquiry.
11. Similarly, no reason for interference is found, with the award holding the punishment of removal from service to be proportionate for the long unauthorized absence of the Petitioner.
12. The counsel for the Respondent DJB has also contended that even the present writ petition has been filed after more than three years of the award impugned herein. Though the Petitioner in the writ petition has purported to give an explanation for the said delay by pleading that the Petitioner was not possessed of resources to challenge the award earlier but the same are again vague and it has not been stated as to how the resources has been mustered now. The Petitioner before the Industrial Adjudicator was represented by Jal Mal Karamchari Morcha, a Union and as such explanation for long delay in filing the petition does not inspire confidence. The entire conduct of the Petitioner is of the Petitioner being not interested in employment. The worker who is without employment and wages and keen to join back, would not have waited for over three years to challenge the award against him.
13. No merit is thus found in the writ petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
