Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. PATHAK, J.
Nahun Oraon - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 4357 of 2013
Decided On : 07-02-2023
Dismissal - Unauthorized Absence - Departmental Proceeding - Medical Certificate - [Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300, Section 304A, Section 304B, Section 306, Section 307, Section 308, Section 309, Section 310, Section 311, Section 312, Section 313, Section 314, Section 315, Section 316, Section 317, Section 318, Section 319, Section 320, Section 321, Section 322, Section 323, Section 324, Section 325, Section 326, Section 327, Section 328, Section 329, Section 330, Section 331, Section 332, Section 333, Section 334, Section 335, Section 336, Section 337, Section 338, Section 339, Section 340, Section 341, Section 342, Section 343, Section 344, Section 345, Section 346, Section 347, Section 348, Section 349, Section 350, Section 351, Section 352, Section 353, Section 354, Section 355, Section 356, Section 357, Section 358, Section 359, Section 360, Section 361, Section 362, Section 363, Section 364, Section 365, Section 366, Section 367, Section 368, Section 369, Section 370, Section 371, Section 372, Section 373, Section 374, Section 375, Section 376, Section 377, Section 378, Section 379, Section 380, Section 381, Section 382, Section 383, Section 384, Section 385, Section 386, Section 387, Section 388, Section 389, Section 390, Section 391, Section 392, Section 393, Section 394, Section 395, Section 396, Section 397, Section 398, Section 399, Section 400, Section 401, Section 402, Section 403, Section 404, Section 405, Section 406, Section 407, Section 408, Section 409, Section 410, Section 411, Section 412, Section 413, Section 414, Section 415, Section 416, Section 417, Section 418, Section 419, Section 420, Section 421, Section 422, Section 423, Section 424, Section 425, Section 426, Section 427, Section 428, Section 429, Section 430, Section 431, Section 432, Section 433, Section 434, Section 435, Section 436, Section 437, Section 438, Section 439, Section 440, Section 441, Section 442, Section 443, Section 444, Section 445, Section 446, Section 447, Section 448, Section 449, Section 450, Section 451, Section 452, Section 453, Section 454, Section 455, Section 456, Section 457, Section 458, Section 459, Section 460, Section 461, Section 462, Section 463, Section 464, Section 465, Section 466, Section 467, Section 468, Section 469, Section 470, Section 471, Section 472, Section 473, Section 474, Section 475, Section 476, Section 477, Section 478, Section 479, Section 480, Section 481, Section 482, Section 483, Section 484, Section 485, Section 486, Section 487, Section 488, Section 489, Section 490, Section 491, Section 492, Section 493, Section 494, Section 495, Section 496, Section 497, Section 498, Section 499, Section 500, Section 501, Section 502, Section 503, Section 504, Section 505, Section 506, Section 507, Section 508, Section 509, Section 510, Section 511] - The court discussed the petitioner's unauthorized absence and the medical certificate provided as evidence. The court found that the petitioner's absenteeism did not align with the dates mentioned in the medical certificates, and the reasons given by the petitioner for not appearing before the authorities were not in line with the evidence presented. The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on certain judgments, stating that the charges against the petitioner did not warrant judicial review. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence and gross negligence towards his duties. The petitioner claimed that his absence was due to mental illness and medical treatment, and argued that the punishment order was too harsh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's absenteeism did not align with the dates mentioned in the medical certificates, and the reasons given by the petitioner for not appearing before the authorities were not in line with the evidence presented. The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on certain judgments, stating that the charges against the petitioner did not warrant judicial review. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, Gross negligence, Medical certificate, Harsh punishment, Judicial review
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's unauthorized absence and the medical certificate provided as evidence were carefully analyzed by the court. The court found that the petitioner's absenteeism did not align with the dates mentioned in the medical certificates, and the reasons given by the petitioner for not appearing before the authorities were not in line with the evidence presented. The court also rejected the petitioner's reliance on certain judgments, stating that the charges against the petitioner did not warrant judicial review.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merits and no interference warranted in the case.
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter no. 02/D-06-01-43/ 2012, Dated 04.01.2013, issued vide Memo No. 02/D, by Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, Ranchi; the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Area, Ranchi, issued vide memo no. 993, dated 17.03.2012 as also the order of dismissal of petitioner from service, vide Ranchi District Order No. 5156 of 2008, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi issued vide memo no. 3877, dated 07.11.2008/25.10.2008. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to join services with all consequential benefits.
3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as a constable in the erstwhile state of Bihar on 15.10.1999. After his appointment, petitioner was discharging his duties efficiently and to the satisfaction of the superior authorities. It is case of the petitioner that in the year 2002, seven days’ compensatory leave was sanctioned to the petitioner and after expiry of the said period, he gave his joining. Petitioner remained absent from 31.03.2005 up to 05.06.2005 and thereafter joined the services on 06.06.2005. Thereafter, for the charges of gross negligence towards his duties and for unauthorized absence, petitioner was proceeded departmentally in Departmental Proceeding No. 91 of 2006.
4. It is specific case of the petitioner that unauthorized absence was neither intentional nor deliberate rather in compelling circumstances as he was mentally ill and was undergoing treatment and it was only after recovery, he presented himself before the authorities by preferring an Appeal, which was not considered and he was dismissed from the service mechanically on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the orders of the superior authorities, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.
5. Mr. Atanu Bannerjee assisted by Mr. Prabhat Kumar Munda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the punishment order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that earlier petitioner had given prior intimation and taken prior leave and after exhausting the leave, joined the services. It was due to compelling circumstances that he was prevented from joining the services and as such it cannot be termed as wilful and deliberate absence from duty. Learned counsel further submits that he underwent treatment before a leading practitioner of RINPAS and a certificate to that effect has also been submitted before the Appellate Authority but the same was not considered and the Appellate Authority, relying upon the findings of the disciplinary authority, has affirmed the order of punishment. Learned counsel further argues that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the reply and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order as to why the Medical Certificate and other contention of the petitioner were not considered and plea raised by the petitioner was rejected. In absence of any specific findings, the Appellate Order can be comfortably said to be nonest in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the punishment of dismissal from the service is too harsh and by awarding the capital punishment, the authorities have snatched livelihood of a poor constable and his family. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment order being too harsh, should be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remitted back before the authorities for fresh consideration on the point of quantum. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the Judgments passed in the case of Regional Manager, UCO Bank and another Vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in (2022) 5 SCC 695; State of Karnataka and another Vs. Umesh reported in (2022) 5 SCC 563 [Para-22 and 23] and Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610.
6. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned GA-II representing St
The party who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 is supposed to the truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose....
The importance of truthfulness and openness when invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226, and the serious view taken on indiscipline in the Armed Forces.
Point of Law : Discipline is the backbone of the Police force and the highest degree of discipline is imperative for the smooth functioning of the police force.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a departmental proceeding, the absence must be proven to be willful, and disproportionate punishment warrants judicial review.
Absence due to compelling circumstances cannot be considered willful, and dismissal orders should consider all relevant aspects before being issued.
Dismissal should only be imposed for willful and intentional absence, and the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Disciplinary actions must follow due process, and absence due to illness cannot be deemed willful misconduct without proper inquiry.
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
