Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Since charge of only willful absence from duty was clearly established, Disciplinary Authority should not have imposed penalty of removal from service.

Virinder Singh Vs State of HP 31.03.2009 (uniqueunique)
CWP No. 537 of 2005
RB MISRA, SURJIT SINGH

2009 LIC (NOC) 861 (HP)

Con­sti­tu­tion of India Art.311 — Chargesheet was framed and served upon peti­tioner — Dis­ci­pli­nary Author­ity then appointed an Inquiry Offi­cer, who sub­mit­ted report that all charges were proved by evi­dence led dur­ing course of inquiry — Dis­ci­pli­nary Author­ity observed while pass­ing order of penalty that all charges stood proved against peti­tioner — Peti­tioner chal­lenged order of his removal from ser­vice, before State Admin­is­tra­tive Tri­bunal, by fil­ing afore­said Orig­i­nal Appli­ca­tion — Tri­bunal has dis­missed appli­ca­tion, hold­ing that all charges against peti­tioner stand estab­lished and charges being of seri­ous nature, penalty of removal from ser­vice has rightly been imposed — Learned coun­sel for peti­tioner has placed reliance upon a com­mu­ni­ca­tion, which was writ­ten by some­one from his office to Direc­tor, Sainik Wel­fare Depart­ment, per which wife of peti­tioner had informed, on 17th Jan­u­ary, 1995, that peti­tioner had been admit­ted to Civil Hos­pi­tal, Dharamshala, for med­ical treat­ment — Inquiry Offi­cer made fol­low­ing obser­va­tion, while deal­ing with this par­tic­u­lar charge: “……… 9. Third charge was too vague — Since charge of only will­ful absence from duty was clearly estab­lished, Dis­ci­pli­nary Author­ity should not have imposed penalty of removal from service.

Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Since charge of only willful absence from duty was clearly established, Disciplinary Authority should not have imposed penalty of removal from service.