IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized absence for a long period constitutes gross misconduct, and the principle of no work, no pay applies in cases of dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer.

“I. A writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the impugned speaking order No. EE/PHE/MIsc-45/2013-14 dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Silchar Division-l, Silchar based upon which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for alleged unauthorised absence from duties; and as to why:

II. A writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued quashing the impugned office order No. 22/2014-15 dated 2.7.2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, P.H.E, Silchar Division-I, Silchar dismissing the petitioner from service with retrospective effect from the date of alleged unauthorised absence i.e. from 1.8.1996; and as to why:

III. A writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued commanding/directing the respondent authorities to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in his post of Work Charged Khalasi and further direct the respondent authorities to release the pay and allowances due to the petitioner since August 1999 and other consequential benefits that may be available under the rules, and

IV. Upon cause/causes being shown and upon hearing the parties and after perusal of the records be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass other order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper and

Pending disposal of the case, Your Lordships may be pleased to pass an order in the interim observing that the pendency of the caser will not be a bar to pay the due pay and allowances as is admissible to the petitioner since August 1999 and/or pass such other order/orders as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts projected in the petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a skilled worker on 18.05.1989 in the Public Health Engineering Department at Silchar Division I and was subsequently promoted as Work Charged Khalasi on 29.08.1989. It is projected that on 30.03.1996, the petitioner had sustained injuries due to electric shock while on duty for which hospitalization and treatment for a long period was required. The petitioner claims to have joined back in service on 16.07.1999. However, his salaries were paid only up to July 1996. The petitioner claims to have applied for medical leave for the period of absence till 15.07.1999. An order dated 24.12.2003 has also been relied upon by the petitioner whereby the services of the petitioners with many Work Charged employees were regularized.

3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4665/2005 with a direction for arrear salaries which was disposed of by this Court by directing payment of the salaries after verification of the records. As no action was taken, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition WP(C)/1363/2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.06.2013 allowing the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer, PHE along with the medical papers for regularization of his absence of leave and the authority to pass necessary orders for payment of the salaries. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a Speaking Order has been passed on 17.12.2013 holding that the petitioner had not submitted the original medical documents and only Xerox copies were submitted. A Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide Show Cause Notice dated 13.03.2014 which the petitioner had replied on 19.03.2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of any action towards holding an enquiry and vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2014, the petitioner was dismissed from service with retrospective effect from 01.08.1996 on the charge of unauthorized absence. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

4. I have heard Shri M. Sharma, learn