KRISHNA AVTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Krishna Avtar Singh
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This application has been filed assailing the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 08.06.2016, and the impugned order dated 01.07.2016, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The case of the petitioner is that due to the reasons beyond his control, as he was having severe health problems, he could not report for duty and on the report of the Enquiry Officer pursuant to departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service. Prayer as set forth is for quashing the impugned findings and the impugned order and for the reinstatement of the petitioner in service.
(2.) Ms. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after availing leave could not rejoin duty, due to severe health problems for which Medical Certificates substantiating the same had been furnished in the course of enquiry, but which however, were not given due weightage nor appreciated. She submits that based on the said recommendations of the enquiry, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, by impugned order dated 01.07.2016 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment as meted out to the petitioner was extremely harsh and the reasons for his absence as submitted earlier, was beyond his control and not voluntarily. She therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside as being based on an enquiry, which is incomplete, inasmuch as, the Enquiry proceedings failed to appreciate the fact, that the absence was never willful but caused by severe illness.
(3.) Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z. E. Nongkynrih, learned GA on behalf of the respondents, firstly submits that the writ petition is incompetent and not maintainable for the simple fact that the Assam Police Manual as adopted provides for an appeal against such orders which the petitioner has not availed of. He further submits that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to defend himself at every stage of the enquiry which had been conducted in accordance with law, and wherein all the charges were proven. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, having failed to prefer an appeal within the stipulated time, has instead come before this Court for the reliefs as stated, which is untenable. He further submits that the averments made in the counter affidavit, specifically at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, have remained uncontroverted by the petitioner, which speaks volumes about his conduct and dedication to service. He lastly submits that, there being no merit, whatsoever in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.