Rahul Kumar Bhartiya vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1898 ALL

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1898 ALL
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2021

Allahabad High Court

Rahul Kumar Bhartiya vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 2 February, 2021

Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1412 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Bhartiya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 24.08.2020 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal. The reference petition was preferred by the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment and subsequent orders passed on appeal and revision.

It is a case where petitioner remained absent from service since 27.07.2013 till 05.02.2014. The petitioner was served with notice to explain the conduct. The petitioner herein submitted reply to the notice but no document was produced to prove his illness during the intervening period.

It is a case where petitioner was seeking his transfer. It was not accepted thus remained absent. The punishment inflicted by the administration is only of denial of salary of the period of absence. The learned Tribunal did not find a case to cause interference in the order and otherwise petitioner belongs to a disciplined force, thus, absence from duty could have been taken serious but there is only denial of salary for the intervening period.

In view of above and as we don't find any infirmity in the action of the administration and error in the judgment of Tribunal, no reason exists to cause interference therein. It is more so when petitioner did not submit any document about his illness while giving reply to the notice though those documents have been submitted now but cannot be accepted.

It is even for the reason that when counsel was asked as to whether the reimbursement of the medicines prescribed for the treatment was sought, he was unable to answer aforesaid and at times evidence is created subsequently to justify absence and are not submitted along the reply.

The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.2.2021

V.S.Singh