CHAMAN LAL Vs. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-46
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 07,2013

CHAMAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
State Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) IN a disciplinary proceeding, petitioner has been dismissed from service. He challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal but failed and hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE fact remains that the petitioner was charged for remaining absent for 218 days during the period between 11th October, 1996 and 17th May, 1997, for which reason he was suspended on 16th October, 1996 and, subsequent thereto, he remained absent for ten hours and thirty minutes when he reported back on 29th May, 1997 after having had been granted a leave of seven days and, thereafter, he remained unauthorisedly absent for 75 days from 11th June, 1997 to 30th August, 1997 when he was accorded five days leave. This charge -sheet was not replied. Petitioner, however, appeared before the Inquiry Officer and stated before the Inquiry Officer that he fell ill and, accordingly, went to a private doctor when the private doctor advised him to get himself treated in the same hospital, where he was being treated and, accordingly, he went back to the hospital where he was treated previously and, thereafter, he joined on 17th May, 1997. He did not explain anything about the 75 days unauthorized absence from the period 11th June, 1997 to 30th August, 1997. Be that as it may, he held out before the Inquiry Officer that medical certificates pertaining to his absence from 11th October, 1996 to 17th May, 1997 have been furnished to the authorities concerned. This contention of the petitioner, as was highlighted in the inquiry report, was duly taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority, while passing order of termination, but he did not state that the assertion that the petitioner submitted medical reports on 17th May, 1997 is not correct. The fact remains that that assertion was not put forward either before the Tribunal, or in the present writ petition calling upon the department to give a response thereto. The fact remains that during the periods petitioner remained absent, he did not either apply for leave or inform any one in his Department that he will not be in a position to attend to his duties for any reason. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that there was no unauthorized absence as such so is the contention before us. The fact remains that on 11th October, 1996, petitioner was relieved by Narendranagar P.S. in order to enable him to join Deoprayag P.S. Petitioner went to Deoprayag P.S. only on 17th May, 1997. In between 11th October, 1996 and 17th May, 1997, petitioner did not inform any authority or anyone in his Department as to what is preventing him from joining his transferred post. Petitioner was suspended on 16th October, 1996 for having had remained absent without authority for a period of 218 days during the period between 11th October, 1996 and 17th May, 1997. While the petitioner was on suspension on 11th June, 1997, petitioner was given five days leave, but the petitioner returned on 30th August, 1997 after remaining unauthorisedly absent for 75 days. He did not inform anyone as to what prevented him from returning within the time as was permitted. Petitioner is contending that his son was lost. He is contending that he was ill and, accordingly, required medical attention, but the fact remains that though there was a First Information Report pertaining to missing of his son, but there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner became ill requiring him medical treatment.
(3.) THAT being the situation, the Tribunal could not as we also cannot hold that there was no unauthorised absence on the part of the petitioner from duty. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was a Constable. It was contended that the punishment is disproportionate. The Tribunal noted the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Ashok Kumar Singh and another, reported in 1996(1) SLR (SC) 291 and held that, in view of the said judgment, it cannot be contended that the punishment was disproportionate. Having considered the said judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, we have not been able to take a different view. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.