remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for 778 days, from February, 1996 till March, 1998, comprising 328 days in 1996, 360 days in 1997 and 90 days in 1998 and, as in the case of the earlier charge-sheet dated 31st March, 1997, requiring him to submit his response, showing cause as to why his absence not be treated as “misconduct” within the meaning of Clause 28 (13) of the Standing Orders (Regulations). No response was received, from the workman, to either of the said charge-sheets. An Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as “IO”) was appointed, who held and concluded the inquiry on a single day, i.e. 4th September, 1998. The workman was permitted the services of a Defence Assistant. IAL cited, as its lone witness, Mr. Harish Chatola, Senior Office Superintendent, who, from the record, confirmed the fact of absence, from duty, of the workman, during the period stated in the charge-sheet. Cross-examination of Mr. Chatola was offered, which was declined by the workman. The workman, in his defence, cited certain adverse family circumstances, i.e. (i) the hospitalisation of his brother, at Faridabad, consequent to his meeting with an accident, which required the workman to take care of him till March, 1997, (ii) an accident, suffered by the workman himself, during the said period, in January, 1997, as a result whereof he was also immobilised for 4 months, and (iii) infection developing in the workman‟s leg, during that period, resulting in his being further unable to rejoin duty till November, 1997. It was further contended, by the workman, that he had reported, for work, on 24th November, 1997, whereupon he was directed to make an application through proper channel, accompanied by a medical certificate of fitness. Since
