Ajai Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8054 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 14754 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla,Pallavi Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for opposite party No.2.

The writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 269 of 2013, whereby the claim petition preferred against the punishment order dated 15.6.2011 as well as appellate and revisional orders dated 17.11.2011 and 14.1.2013 respectively was dismissed by the Tribunal on merit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering the fact that the petitioner had gone to Haridwar for reporting duty, but he was not allowed to join and had returned back and thereafter he had fallen ill and was admitted in PAC hospital. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for employment leave for five years, the application remained pending and the writ petition No. 2491 (SS) of 2008 preferred in this regard by the petitioner also pending and as such, the authorities were required to wait for the decision on the writ petition before holding that the petitioner is on willful unauthorized absence from duty.

We have considered the submissions. It is to be noted that it is the admitted case of the parties which has also been taken note of by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner had been absent from duty for more than three years without there being any sanction of leave from the competent authority. The Medical Certificate for that period has also not been produced. It is submitted that in Writ Petition No. 2491 (SS) of 2008 which was preferred by the petitioner, there was no interim order. The application for employment leave for five years preferred by the petitioner dated 22.9.2007 was not allowed and no such leave was granted to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had reported for duty at Haridwar after a period of one year from the date of his transfer and as such was not allowed to join at Haridwar.

In the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order under challenge and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered every aspect of the matter in coming to the conclusion that the claim petition preferred by the petitioner is devoid of merit.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

.

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.]

Order Date :- 15.7.2021

lakshman