Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Khoda Takar S/o Khoda Laji – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 416 of 2015
Decided On : 14-03-2024
Disciplinary Proceedings - Removal from Service - 22.04.2010 - 16.09.2010 - 03.11.2014 - 25.06.2015 - [Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Director General of Police] - The court discussed the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged with remaining unauthorizely absent from duties w.e.f. 22.04.2010. The petitioner refrained from participating in the enquiry proceedings and did not respond to notices, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The court upheld the penalty of removal from service, considering the petitioner's lack of cooperation and failure to provide justification for non-participation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with remaining unauthorizely absent from duties w.e.f. 22.04.2010. Despite repeated notices, the petitioner refrained from participating in the enquiry proceedings and did not respond to the penalty imposition notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the penalty of removal from service, considering the petitioner's lack of cooperation and failure to provide justification for non-participation.
Issues: Failure to participate in enquiry proceedings, lack of cooperation, and justification for non-participation.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's lack of cooperation and failure to provide justification for non-participation led to the court upholding the penalty of removal from service.
Final Decision: The writ petition is without any merit and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. H. Lampu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the State/respondents.
2. The challenge made in this present proceedings is to an order dated 21.06.2012, issued by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding drawn against him. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 03.11.2014, issued by the Appellate Authority and an order dated 25.06.2015 issued by the Reviewing Authority upholding the penalty as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.
3. The facts requisite to be considered in the present proceeding is noticed herein-below:
The Enquiry Officer on entering appearance in the matter had issued notices to the petitioner on 08.09.2010 to appear before him on 07.10.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 07.10.2010 and a preliminary enquiry was thereafter held. The petitioner thereafter, inspite of being issued with repeated notices, refrained from appearing in the enquiry and accordingly, the enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the matter on 03.08.2011 holding the charge leveled against the petitioner to be proved.
The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and required him to submit his representation against the same within 15(fifteen) days. The enquiry report was received by the petitioner on 31.01.2012 but, he refrained from submitting any representation against the same. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide his notice dated 14.05.2012 informed the petitioner that the penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed upon him and accordingly, required the petitioner to submit his representation in the matter. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice dated 14.05.2012 and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 21.06.2012, on examining the enquiry report and the evidences coming on record, proceeded to confirm the proposed penalty of removal from service of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner came to be imposed with the penalty of removal from service and the period of his absence w.e.f. 22.04.2010 was directed to be treated as “not spent on duty.”
The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an appeal before the Director General of Police on 31.07.2012 and the said appeal was disposed of vide an order dated 03.11.2014, rejecting the same and upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for review of the penalty as imposed on him on 15.01.2015, the said application for review was duly considered and the same came to be rejected vide an order dated 25.06.2015, confirming the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.06.2012. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was instituted by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsels for the parties have made their submissions in tune with the pleadings as brought on record by them and accordingly, the same is not reproduced herein.
5. The petitioner, on receipt of the Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2010 had not submitted any representation in the matter and accordingly, an enquiry was directed against him. The enquiry report reveals that the petitioner appeared before the Enquir
While courts generally do not interfere with findings of fact in disciplinary inquiries, a penalty of dismissal for unauthorised absence is reviewable if the disciplinary authority fails to exercise ....
The main legal point established is that in cases of unauthorized absence from duties, the disciplinary authority must provide the delinquent employee with fair opportunities to defend themselves, an....
The court emphasized that medical documents must establish the inability to discharge duties to justify absence from duty. It also highlighted the importance of conducting enquiry proceedings as per ....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair enquiry and opportunity for the accused to present their case.
Habitual unauthorised absence, failure to comply with orders, and proportionality of punishment in disciplinary actions
The penalty imposed on the petitioner for unauthorized absence was found disproportionate due to his health issues, leading to a ruling for compulsory retirement with pension instead.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
Disciplinary authorities have the right to impose penalties for unauthorized absence, provided due process is followed and the penalties are proportionate to the misconduct.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
