The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that if an employee is absent from duty without leave, the same shall be treated as misconduct and after obtaining the explanation from the concerned employee, proceedings shall be drawn up and punishment can be inflicted. After explanation, if it is found that the concerned employee had remained absent from duty due to any sufficient reason, he/she shall be granted leave admissible for that period.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner was appointed to the post of process server in the civil court, Ranchi and then he was transferred to Lohardaga. While working he was promoted to the post of Assistant and was discharging the duties of Nazir. After that, the Petitioner was again transferred to Sahibganj and since then, he has been working there. Furthermore, the Petitioner applied for leave and while on leave, he fell ill and couldn’t join the duties on time. However, the same was intimated to the District and Sessions Judge by way of application. After recovering, the Petitioner again couldn’t join the duties as his son met with an accident. After that, the petitioner tried to join his duty but unfortunately, since he was a cardiac patient and had undergone Angioplastic Surgery. The said fact was also intimated to the Judge-in-Charge, Civil Court. Thereafter, the Petitioner was served with show cause notice to which the Petitioner replied. Then, the departmental proceedings were initiated and the Petitioner was held guilty of unauthorized absence and imposed the punishment of dismissal of service. Aggrieved by this, the appeal was preferred before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges leveled. It was furthermore contended that the honesty and integrity of the petitioner had never been questioned prior to the present charges and during the long period of service of 21 years no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against him and as such, the quantum of punishment may be converted into compulsory retirement in the interest of justice.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent contended that on the basis of the service book, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner, and the Petitioner was transferred several times as he was creating trouble. It was furthermore contended that the Petitioner was in the habit of remaining absent from the service unauthorisedly and after several inquiry and providing him a chance, he was reinstated in his service with minor punishment.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that a departmental proceeding was initiated as a result of the petitioner's unlawful absence and his previous service history, during which he received two minor punishments for unauthorized absence. The enquiry officer's conclusions ultimately led to the petitioner's dismissal.
It was furthermore observed that it is well settled that failing to report for work without authorization will be viewed as misbehavior, and steps will be taken to determine the cause of the absence—after consulting with the affected employee—before imposing a penalty. After being given an explanation, if it is determined that the concerned employee's absence from work was caused by a valid reason, leave that is acceptable for that duration will be provided. In the present case, the Petitioner has already explained the circumstances which prevented him from joining the duty on time.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India Vs. Anr., and S.R. Tiwari Vs. Union of India, and Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India & ors.
The court noted that the instant case, disproportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the charges imputed against the petitioner can also be seen.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the order of dismissal, and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of lesser punishment other than the dismissal/ removal and preferably that of compulsory retirement.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Case title: Laxman Singh V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P. (S) No.962 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
