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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Shyamanand Jha, S/o. Late Ramjeevan Jha - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(S) No. 7227 of 2013
Decided On : 06-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kaustav Roy.
For the State : Mr. Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII.
For the Accountant General : Mr. Amit Kr. Verma.

The punishment imposed must be in accordance with the prescribed list of punishments under the relevant rules and should not deviate from the statutory provisions.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Absence - Departmental Proceeding - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 - The court discussed the punishment imposed on the petitioner for unauthorized absence and the applicability of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The court found that the punishment of reversion from private secretary to personal assistant was commensurate with the offense. However, the punishments of reducing pay salary to the minimum scale of pay for the post and not counting the said period for pensionary benefits were without authority of law and were quashed and set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a private secretary, was departmentally proceeded for unauthorized absence. The inquiry officer found the charge proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed various punishments, including reversion from private secretary to personal assistant, reducing pay salary, and non-payment of salary for the period of absence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the punishment of reversion from private secretary to personal assistant was commensurate with the offense of unauthorized absence. However, the punishments of reducing pay salary and not counting the said period for pensionary benefits were without authority of law and were quashed and set aside.

Issues: The main issue was whether the punishments imposed on the petitioner for unauthorized absence were in accordance with the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment of reversion from private secretary to personal assistant was commensurate with the offense of unauthorized absence. However, the punishments of reducing pay salary and not counting the said period for pensionary benefits were without authority of law and were quashed and set aside.

Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the punishments of reducing pay salary and not counting the said period for pensionary benefits were quashed and set aside. Arrears of salary with respect to these punishments were to be released within three months from the date of the court's order.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order as contained in memo no.99 dated 17.04.2013 passed by the respondent no.2, by which, the following punishments have been inflicted as has been affirmed by the appellate authority, have been sought to be quashed:-

    (i) Reversing the rank of petitioner from private secretary to personal assistant;

(ii) Reducing his pay salary to minimum scale of pay for the post;

(iii) Taking decision of non-payment of salary for the period of absence and

(iv) Not counting the said period for pensionary benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated which read as under:-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Personal Assistant under the Water Resource Department of the Government of Jharkhand after reversion.

4. It is the further case that the Nephew (Bhagina) of the petitioner who was looking after the entire household affairs of the petitioner as well as his properties was murdered and the petitioner got the information at 7:00 pm on 31.12.2008, accordingly at 8:00 pm itself the petitioner went to the Secretary i.e. his controlling authority and sought leave of one week with effect from 01.01.2009 which was allowed and thus the petitioner proceeded for his house situated in the district of Dharbhanga. Since the situation was crucial at his village after murder of his nephew, as such, before expiry of the sanctioned leave on 08.01.2009 he sent an application by post to the secretary (respondent no. 6) concerned to grant earned leave to the petitioner from 08.01.2009 to 31.01.2009.

5. Thereafter, he again requested the respondent concerned to grant further leave vide his application dated 01.03.2009, thereafter also vide application dated 30.03.2009, which are attached hereto with the application. On 3.7.2009, he again sent the application through fax to his controlling authority i.e. respondent no. 6 to grant further leave.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner has been continuously sending the applications before his controlling officer, i.e. the respondent no. 6 for grant/extension of the leave regularly, which has never been refused, such as on 10.12.2009, 10.3.2010, 8.4.2010, 7.6.2010, 11.8.2010 which were duly received and all these applications were containing the actual address of the petitioner where he was residing, but never any order has been communicated by the respondents to the petitioner showing that the respondent no. 6 has ever rejected his leave applications which clearly suggests that the leave applications submitted by the petitioner were duly accepted.

7. All of sudden on 18.10.2010, the petitioner came to know through his friend about a notice said to be published in Hindi daily 'Prabhat Khabar' published in its Ranchi edition on dated 12.10.2010 where in the petitioner was directed to submits his joining on duty otherwise and cautioned to face the disciplinary actions. The writ petitioner being dedicated and loyal employee even during severe pain in his 1-5 Spine, appeared before the Respondent no. 2 and submitted his joining with an application along with its annexure containing the earlier communications made by him with the relevant medical prescriptions and being satisfied with the same the respondent no. 2 has accepted his joining. It is relevant to submit here that till then neither the petitioner was suspended nor his prayer was ever rejected, which may be evident from the aforesaid document and thus it may be safely said that taking into consideration of his genuine cause the respondent accepted the joining which could safely be said that the petitioner has not been considered as absent from duty.

8. Once again he has appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 21.10.2010 and submitted his application with a prayer to grant him medical leave for one month since 8:00 pm from 21.10.2010 to 20.11.2010 and the same

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