Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Om Prakash Pramanik, son of Late Saryau Pramanik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No.94 of 2023
Decided on : 30-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Adamya Kerketta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In disciplinary proceedings, unauthorized absence must be proven as willful to warrant penalties; mere absence does not constitute misconduct without supporting evidence.
Headnote:
[INTRA-COURT APPEAL] - [EMPLOYMENT DISCIPLINARY ACTION] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [The court discussed the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement for evidence in disciplinary proceedings, and the necessity for a finding of willful absence to impose penalties. The court emphasized that unauthorized absence does not automatically equate to misconduct without proof of willfulness. The interpretations of relevant case law, including Roop Singh Negi and Krushnakant B. Parmar, were pivotal in assessing the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was suspended and faced disciplinary action for unauthorized absence from duty, claiming life threats from anti-social elements. Despite multiple extensions of his deputation, he did not report to his assigned post, leading to charges of negligence and indiscipline.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner admitted to unauthorized absence but failed to provide sufficient evidence of life threats or any formal complaints to justify his absence. The inquiry report substantiated the charges against him, and the court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision.
Issues: Whether the absence was willful and whether the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to lack of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized absence does not equate to willful misconduct without a finding of willfulness. The absence of evidence supporting the claim of life threats undermined the petitioner's defense. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the disciplinary authority to establish willfulness in cases of unauthorized absence.
Final Decision: The intra-court appeal was dismissed, affirming the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6243 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition filed for seeking direction to set aside the office order contained in memo no.4762 dated 04.09.2010 issued under the signature of the respondent no.2 (District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi) by which the petitioner has been inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect with further stipulation that he would be entitled only for the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and that on the principle of ‘no work no pay’, he would not get any pay for the period he remained absent without information and with a further direction to pay the consequential benefits including the full salary as also to set aside the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no.3.
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that by office order contained in memo no.145 dated 26.06.2007, the appellant was deputed at Girls Government Middle School, Bero, in view of the fact that the appellant made a complaint with respect to various threats given to him by antisocial elements. The said deputation of the writ petitioner/appellant was extended for further 3 months, as would appear from memo no. 198 dated 12.09.2007, in view of the persistent threats to the writ petitioner which was still continuing. Again, vide office order as contained in memo No. 231 dated 01.12.2007, the deputation of the appellant was extended for 3 months at Government Girls Middle School, Bero in the District of Ranchi. Vide memo No. 15 dated 29.02.2008, the further extension was given to the writ petitioner on the post of his deputation at Bero.
4. Thereafter, vide memo no. 62 dated 01.09.2008, further one month’s extension to the writ petitioner was given at the post of his deputation at Bero, in view of the threats by anti-social elements to the writ petitioner at Akramroma Primary School.
5. In view of the direction contained in memo No. 145 dated 26.06.2007; memo No. 231 dated 01.12.2007; memo no. 15 dated 29.02.2008 and memo no. 62 dated 01.09.2008, the writ petitioner submitted his joining and discharged his duty at the place strictly as per the direction of the authorities. The writ petitioner thereafter put under suspension vide office order contained in memo No. 1715 dated 08.06.2009.
6. The memo of charge was framed against the writ petitioner vide memo no. 1717 dated 08.06.2009 for the following charges:
(a) To remain absent unauthorisedly from the school without any information for last 4 months;
(b) The unauthorized absence amounted to negligence and the same was against the departmental provisions;
7. The writ petitioner has submitted his reply on 10.03.2010 stating inter alia that his life was at stake at the place of posting and the information to this effect was orally given to the concerned officers.
8. The respondent no. 3 submitted its enquiry report vide memo No. 89 dated 11.03.2010 stating inter alia that the action of the writ petitioner was punishable and the explanation of the writ petitioner cannot be accepted so far the charge no.1 was concerned. So far as charge No. 2, it was opined by the Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 3) that the explanation given by the writ petitioner could not be accepted on the ground that he did not give any information either to the concerned Police Station nor his controlling authority.
9. It is the further case that second show cause was asked from the writ petitioner by respondent no. 2 through memo no. 1703 dated 10.04.2010 directing him inter alia to inform the responden
