Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sudhan Mondal vs Union Of India on 7 October, 2024
Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur
Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
(VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE)
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
WPA No 12398 of 2023
Sudhan Mondal
Vs
Union of India
For the petitioner : Mr. Ziaul Islam
For the Union of India : Mr. Partha Ghosh
Judgment on : 07.10.2024
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. The petitioner assails an order dated 24 December 2022 passed by
the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been inter-
alia held guilty of unauthorised absence from work for a period of 37
days commencing from 1 November 2022 to 7 December 2022. The
order directs punishment of dies non for the specified 37 days under
Rule 25 of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1972 as applicable
vide GSR 849 dated 16 June 1979. However, such absence was
condoned insofar as pension payable to the petitioner was
concerned.
2. Briefly, the petitioner had been initially appointed as a Constable
General Duty in the Border Security Force on 21 July 1998 and was
serving as Head Constable, Jammu at the time of the incident. In
2022, the petitioner had returned to his native place at
Murshidabad for treatment upon obtaining earned leave for the
period 3 October 2022 to 31 October 2022. Upon his arrival, the
petitioner complained of stomach and knee pain. After medical
investigation it transpired that the petitioner had suffered a high
grade knee injury and that his gall bladder also required surgery.
Hence, the petitioner was advised complete rest pre and post
surgery until further medical examination. In such circumstances,
the petitioner forwarded an application dated 16 November 2022 to
the concerned respondent authority requesting for extension of leave
without indicating any specific time period. Thereafter, the
petitioner had also forwarded an application by an email dated 2
December 2022 praying for extension of leave till 8 December 2022.
3. The petitioner ultimately reported for duty after overstaying his
sanctioned leave by 37 days. Due to the petitioner's overstay, the
case of the petitioner was put up for hearing on 24 December 2022
before the Commandant under the Border Security Force Act 1968
and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner was tried
summarily and was unable to justify his extended leave. In such
circumstances, the petitioner was found guilty and the impugned
order came to be passed.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner received treatment for his knee
injury on 6 October 2022 from a Super Speciality Hospital at
Murshibdabad and was subsequently referred to Murshidabad
Medical College and Hospital, Berhampore and thereafter continued
his treatment at AMRI Hospital. Simultaneously, the petitioner had
also suffered upper abdominal pain for which he was treated at the
BSF hospital and subsequently at Desun Hospital, Kolkata and was
advised bed rest till early December. The respondent authorities
were provided with all medical prescriptions and documents in
support of his prolonged leave of absence. Despite providing the
respondent authorities with all necessary medical documents, the
respondent authorities issued the impugned order at Jammu.
Thereafter, an appeal challenging the impugned order before the
Appellate Authority was also rejected at Jammu.
5. It is contended that the respondents failed to consider the
sanctioned earned leave of 28 days and erroneously held the
petitioner guilty for 37 days unauthorised absence. The respondent
authorities also failed to consider the medical evidence and
prescriptions issued by the different hospitals justifying the
petitioner's absence.
6. The respondents raise the ground of maintainability of the writ
petition. It is alleged that no part of the cause of action has arisen
within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The petitioner had been tried
at Jammu. The impugned order was also passed by the
Commandant:148BN BSF: Paloura Camp:, Jammu. The appeal
preferred by the petitioner was also filed and disposed of at Jammu.
7. On merits, it is alleged that the petitioner failed to provide most
medical documents during the initial proceedings. It was only when
an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, did the petitioner provide
all such additional documents. In any event, the petitioner had
pleaded guilty during the stage of the summary proceedings.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted at Jammu. The initial leave
was sanctioned outside the jurisdiction of this Court. A summary
trial was also conducted at Jammu, outside the jurisdiction of this
Court. The Appellate Authority is also situated at Jammu. All
orders were received by the petitioner at Jammu. In such
circumstances, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any
part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this
Court. On the contrary, the entire cause of action has arisen outside
the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain this petition. The medical treatment of the petitioner
having taken place at Murshidabad and at Kolkata cannot clothe
this Court with jurisdiction. (Eastern Coalfields Ltd. And others vs.
Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456).
9. In view of the above, WPA 12398 of 2023 is not maintainable and
stands dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)
