The court confirmed that an employee's unauthorized absence from duty constitutes misconduct justifying disciplinary action, even when leave has been sanctioned but subsequently cancelled.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 12.10.2016, whereby the petitioner has been punished on conclusion of a departmental proceeding. The Appellate order dated 16.01.2017 is also under challenge.

3. Petitioner is a Constable in CISF. He was posted in Bokaro Steel Plant. The departmental chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner mentioning therein that the petitioner from 11.05.2016 to 10.06.2016 i.e. 31 days, remain unauthorizedly absent without any information. The departmental proceeding was initiated and after conclusion of the same, he was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, as it was held that the petitioner had committed the misconduct.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that leave was already sanctioned, but the order could not be delivered to him and without receiving the order he had gone on leave. He submits that the impugned order whereby the respondents- authorities have established the guilt of the petitioner and consequently punished him is absolutely bad.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 31 days, thus the punishment was inflicted and the punishment is a minor punishment, which should not be interfered with.

6. The petitioner has been chargesheeted with the allegation that he remained unauthorizedly absent for 31 days from 11.05.2016 to 10.06.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the leave was sanctioned and the petitioner left on that day after performing his shift duty. Thus, it cannot be said that he was unauthorizedly absent.

7. Through counter affidavit at para 14, the respondents have made the following statement:-

14. That with regard to the statement made at paragraph-7 & 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner had applied for 26 days E.L from 15/05/16 to 10/06/16 and being Second Saturday and Sunday dated 13/5/16 & 14/5/16 also be treated as prefix with the leave. The petitioner had also applied for C.C.L. (Compensatory Casual Leave) on 11/5/16 & 12/5/16 as prefix. Hence, the petitioner was not supposed to move for leave on 10/05/16 (A.N.) unless CCL sanctioned by the authority. It is fact that 26 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 15/05/16 applied by the petitioner had been sanctioned by the competent authority on dated 10/05/16 but CCL not sanctioned till 10/05/16. After completion of ’A’ Shift duty on 10/05/16 at about 13.20 hrs. while the petitioner enquired about his leave certificate, the Company Writer informed that the matter regarding to avail leave by the petitioner was under suspense as an enquiry against the petitioner Under Rule-37 was pending. At about 16.00 hrs. the sanctioned leave of the petitioner was cancelled by the competent authority as a disciplinary case was pending against the individual with remarks that he may apply for leave after the case was finalized.

The Company Writer tried to inform the petitioner over phone on 10/05/16 but could not get him. On 11/05/16 the Company Writer informed him over phone that his leave had been cancelled by the competent authority and he detailed for ’C’ Shift Duty on 11/05/16. But the petitioner had already left the Unit Family Quarter wef. 10/05/16 (A.N.) with his family member and went to his native place at Malda (West Bengal) which he also confessed during enquiry and remained him absent without leave as well as from duty upto 10/06/16 at his own and reported for duty on 11/06/16.

It is to mention here that during AWL period 03 call-up letters dated 16/05/16, 24/05/16 and 31/05/16 were issued to the petitioner at the leave address of the petitioner but out