SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1023

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.
Shri Shabbir Sayyed - Petitioner
Versus
The Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair & Another - Respondents
WPA No. 642 of 2023
Decided On : 23-06-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arul Prasanth.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumit Karmakar.

A government servant who is unable to return to his headquarters due to non-availability of public transport during a pandemic is deemed to have joined duty on the date of expiry of official tour.

Headnote:

SERVICE LAW - DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - QUASHING - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965 - RULE 14 - INQUIRY - ABSENCE FROM PLACE OF POSTING - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - COVID-19 LOCKDOWN - NON-AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT - LEAVE ON DUTY - ENTITLEMENT TO REMUNERATION AND EMOLUMENTS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Lower Grade Clerk, was deputed to Port Blair for official duty from May 11 to 17, 2021. He handed over the relevant files and daks to the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Port Blair on May 12, 2021. However, due to the COVID-19 lockdown and non-availability of public transport, he could not return to his station at Mayabunder as per the direction contained in the Office Order. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The petitioner challenged the departmental proceedings by filing a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause from reporting back to his station due to the COVID-19 lockdown and non-availability of public transport. The Court also noted that the Administration had treated the absence of other staff residing at Bambooflat as “leave on duty” during the same period.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from reporting back to his place of posting within the period stipulated in Office Order No.7 dated 10th May 2021.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from reporting back to his place of posting due to the COVID-19 lockdown and non-availability of public transport. The Court relied on the Office Memorandum dated 28th July 2020 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, which clarified that government servants who were unable to return to their headquarters due to non-availability of public transport during the pandemic would be deemed to have joined duty on the date of expiry of official tour.

Final Decision: The Court quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner and directed the respondents to treat his absence from May 11, 2021, to June 19, 2021, as “leave on duty”. The Court also directed the respondents to release the remuneration, emoluments, etc., to which the petitioner was entitled in respect of such period within three months from the date of the order.

JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J.

1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the Memorandum No. 6-2023/CRT/PB/CON dated 9th February 2023 for holding inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding in relation to Memorandum No. 04-2023/CRT/PB/CON dated 31st January 2023 issued by respondent No. 1, Learned District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair and also for direction upon Respondent no. 1 to treat the period of absence of petitioner from his place of posting as “Leave on Duty” and further for releasing remunerations, allowances etc. in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a Lower Grade Clerk under Respondent no.1, Learned District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair and attached to the office of Respondent no.2, Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, North & Middle Andaman District, Mayabunder. By dint of Office Order No. 7 dated 10th May 2021, the petitioner was deputed to proceed to Port Blair to hand over some urgent official files and letters and other miscellaneous works. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner reached Port Blair in the evening of 11th May 2021 and handed over files/dak to the Diary Section of Respondent No. 1, Learned District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was directed to return back to his station at Mayabunder on or before 17th May 2021. However, the petitioner failed to report back to the station at Mayabunder as per the direction contained in the Office Order No.7 dated 10th May 2021 and he joined on 28th June 2021. On the ground of his deliberate absence from his place of posting, departmental proceedings is initiated against him for holding inquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965 vide Memorandum No. 6-2023/CRT/PB/CON dated 9th February 2021. Being aggrieved by such departmental proceedings initiated at the instance of Respondent No. 1, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application for quashing of such proceeding and incidental reliefs.

3. Mr. Arul Prasanth, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the Office Order No. 7 dated 10th May 2021, the petitioner proceeded to Port Blair and delivered the concerned files and dak to the Office of learned District & Sessions Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on 12th May 2021. However, from 13th May 2021 administrative orders were issued from the office of the District Magistrate, South Andaman District, Port Blair for lock down due to surge in positive cases of COVID-19. During such period of lock down, there was no such public transport to reach Mayabunder and due to which reasons the petitioner could not join his office in terms of the direction contained in the Office Order No.7 dated 10th May 2021. He drew the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioner was prevented from sufficient cause to report back to his place of posting due to non-availability of public transport has been brought to the notice of the appointing authority. He further submitted that though buses were plied since 23rd May 2021 from Port Blair on urgent basis but those buses plied only till Middle Strait and not to Mayabunder which is the place of posting of the Petitioner. During such period of pandemic, the learned District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair treated the absence of other staff as “leave on duty” which benefit was never given to the petitioner for the reasons better known to the Administration. In light of the aforesaid submissions, he prayed for quashing of the Memorandum issued for holding inquiry in departmental proceeding and also

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top