Jharkhand High Court
Jay Prakash Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 22 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3068 of 2020
Jay Prakash Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Director General of Police,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Special Branch, Ranchi. .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to A.G.
-----
7 / 22.11.2021 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the
orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 23.12.2016, as well as
the Appellate Authority dated 24.10.2017, by which the petitioner has been
inflicted with the punishment of withholding of salary from 12.01.2015 to
15.10.2015 as well as increment for six months.
3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The
petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and subsequently, he
was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the State of Jharkhand. It
is the specific case of the petitioner that while he was posted as Inspector
of Police at Special Branch, Saraikela, all of a sudden, he felt difficulty in
movement, and he was advised by the doctor to take bed rest and as such,
he did not join his duty for nine months. It is further case of the petitioner
that though the petitioner informed the Authority regarding his illness, but
the same was not considered. As the petitioner had remained absent from
duty, a charge-sheet was issued on 29.9.2015. Thereafter, the enquiry
officer found the charges to be true and accordingly submitted the enquiry
report, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and after
following the due procedure, punishment order, as aforesaid, was passed on
23.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellate authority also by order dated
24.10.2017 confirmed the punishment by order dated 23.12.2016.
Subsequently, the petitioner superannuated in the year 2020 and when the
period of absence was treated to be unauthorized absence in view of the
punishment order, he has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
4. Mr. Awanish Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner assiduously argues that the petitioner is entitled for salary of
the period of absence i.e. from 12.1.2015 to 15.10.2015, as he was
undergoing treatment due to illness. Learned counsel further argues that the
said period be treated as on leave in view of Rules 234 and 235 of the
Bihar / Jharkhand Service Code and the petitioner be granted salary of the
said period, at least for 180 days. Learned counsel further argues that so
called unauthorized absence was due to compelling circumstance and as
such, the same ought to have been considered as a period spent on duty in
view of the reasons assigned by the petitioner in course of departmental
proceeding. Learned counsel submits that since the absence from duty was
not intentional, rather, it was due to compelling circumstance, the
respondents be directed to pay the salary of the said period after quashment
of the order of punishment.
5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Gaurav
Abhishek, learned AC to A.G., representing the State, vehemently opposes
the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for nine months and ample
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to place his case in the
departmental proceeding. A full dressed departmental proceeding was
conducted as per the procedure. No fault was pointed out by the petitioner
in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer found the petitioner
guilty of the charges and the orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate Authority are based on the finding of the enquiry report. No
irregularity was there with the order of punishment and as such, no
interference is warranted. Learned counsel further argues that not a chit of
paper has been produced on record to show that the petitioner was
undergoing treatment for nine months.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions
of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is
warranted in this case. In a Disciplined Force even a high ranking officials
are required to maintain discipline. Admittedly, the petitioner was an
Inspector of Police. Regard being had to his official position, it was
expected from him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform
his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. In the case at
hand, the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for nine
months. No one can be permitted to remain absent from the service for a
considerable long period, which is permissible only in special
circumstance, which has to be brought to the notice of the Authority. The
petitioner failed to do so. No fault / lacuna has been pointed out by the
petitioner in the departmental proceeding. There is concurrent finding of
the Authorities regarding the punishment order. Even the petitioner has
approached this Court after lapse of three years. Delay and laches for
approaching this Court has not been explained by the petitioner. The
Hon'ble Apex Court, relying upon various judgments, in the case of
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. Vs. T.T.
Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, while dealing with the matter
of delay and laches in approaching the Court, as also the concept of
punishment for unauthorized absence, has observed in relevant paragraphs,
which read as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be
lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the
explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The
court should bear in mind that it is exercising an
extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional
court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate
reason, approaches the court at this own leisure or pleasure,
the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise
whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or
not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most
circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for
the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay
reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant- a
litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second,
law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.
Delay does bring in hazard and cause injury to the lis.
25. Again, while dealing with the concept of punishment the
Court ruled as follows:-
"14. Where the employee who is unauthorisedly absent does
not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation,
or where the explanation offered by the employee is not
satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary
action in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such
disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of
punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or
removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of
increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty
will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by
the employee, the period of absence and the cause /
explanation for the absence."
7. There is a concurrent finding of the Disciplinary Authority as well
as the Appellate Authority. The Court sitting under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot reappraise the evidence for coming to a different
conclusion what already has been derived by the Departmental
Authorities. Absence of nine months from duty without plausible
explanation cannot be taken lightly and brushed aside. No fault has been
pointed by the petitioner regarding the procedure adopted in the
departmental proceeding by the respondents. In absence of the aforesaid
contentions, no interference is warranted. It is stated that the petitioner is
already retired and has received the retiral benefits.
8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, legal
propositions and judicial pronouncements, I find no merit in this writ
petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
