Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhrajit Guha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Appellate Side)
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Reserved on: 12/01/2021
Pronounced on: 03/02/2021
W.P.S.T. 96 OF 2020
Subhrajit Guha
...Petitioner
Through:-
Mr. K.M. Hossain,
...Advocate, Present in Court
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
...Respondents
Through:-
Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta,
...Sr. Advocate, present through VC
Ms. Soumi Guha Thakurata
...Advocate, present in Court
Coram: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated May 24, 2019,
passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata (for short 'the
Tribunal') in O.A. No.296 of 2018.
2. The petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to
the respondents to allow him to resume duty as Amin in the Sub-Divisional
Office of Land and Land Reforms Officer, Lalbagh in the district of
Murshidabad, treating the period of unintentional absence as 'on duty'. The
petitioner claimed that he was working as Amin in the aforesaid office.
W.P.S.T. 96 OF 2020
However, due to change of party in power and compelling circumstances
the petitioner had to leave the place on 11.5.2011 to save him and his
family and he could not attend his duty therefrom. After the circumstances
normalised he moved application to the District Land and Land Reforms
Officer, Murshidabad on 10.12.2012 for allowing him to resume his duty.
No response was received. A request letter was also written on 20.12.2012
followed by letter dated 1.8.2013. On 27.9.2013 the petitioner received copy
of the communication from Sub-Divisional Office of Land and Land
Reforms Officer, Lalbagh to ADM, Land and Land Reforms Officer,
Berhampore, seeking instructions from his superior to take appropriate
steps in the matter. Another representation was made by the petitioner on
16.2.2015. However, to that also no response was received. It was under
these circumstances, Original Application was filed in the year 2018.
3. He further submitted that for more than last nine years neither the
petitioner has been placed under suspension nor any enquiry has been
initiated against him. Hence, he cannot be removed from service
unceremoniously. He should be permitted to join duty subject to whatever
disciplinary action can be taken. He further submitted that the Tribunal
has failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner while
rejecting the O.A. filed by him. It was continuing cause of action, hence,
there was no delay in approaching the Tribunal.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner we do not find any reason
to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal while rejecting the O.A. filed by
the petitioner. It is a case in which admittedly the petitioner is absenting
from his duty from 11.5.2011 onwards. Though it is claimed that he had to
shift his place of residence on account of compelling circumstances
because of change of political power, to save him and his family. However,
there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. It is the admitted
case of the petitioner that the circumstances normalised after about a year
W.P.S.T. 96 OF 2020
as he had moved a representation on 10.12.2012 for permitting him to join
duty. It was not acceded to. Thereafter, the claim is that repeated
representations were made which also did not yield any result. Original
Application was filed before the Tribunal more than seven years after the
petitioner had absented from duty. What has been discussed in the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal is that there is some medical
certificate dated 2.4.2015 produced on record by the petitioner advising
him rest for thirty days on account of medical problem otherwise there is
no good reason for the petitioner to have slept over the matter for so long,
as he did not avail of his appropriate remedy, in case
his grievance was not redressed by the competent authority.
5. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act')
provides that in case the representation filed by an employee is not
responded to by the authority concerned the limitation to raise the issue
before the Tribunal is one year and six months from the date such a
representation had been made. In the case in hand, admittedly the
representation was made on 10.12.2012 and the Original Application was
filed about six years thereafter.
6. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. Before parting with the order we are constrained to comment on the
working of the Government as well. Here is an employee who is absenting
from service for more than eight-nine years but no action was taken against
him. Some authority in the department has to be accountable for this. This
may not be a case in isolation where no action was taken in the case of
employees who are continuously absenting from duty without sanction
from the competent authority. Data pertaining to all such cases need to be
collected and appropriate action should be taken in terms of applicable
rules.
W.P.S.T. 96 OF 2020
8. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of West
Bengal for taking appropriate action in the matter.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE
(ANIRUDDHA ROY)
JUDGE
Kolkata
03 /02/2021
....................
PA(SM)
