Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Dhruba Mahakur - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Others – Respondents
WPC(OAC) No.4818 of 2016
Decided On : 04-01-2023
DISCHARGE FROM SERVICE - UNAUTHORIZED LEAVE - ABSENCE FROM TRAINING - REINSTATEMENT - MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was discharged from service for unauthorized leave and absence from training. He claimed that he was ill and submitted a medical certificate. The appellate authority rejected his request for reinstatement, and the petitioner filed a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was absent from training without permission but that he had submitted a medical certificate for the period of his unauthorized leave. The court also found that the appellate authority had not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner's request for reinstatement.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's unauthorized leave and absence from training were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's unauthorized leave was justified because he had submitted a medical certificate. However, the court also held that the petitioner's absence from training was not justified because he had not obtained permission.
Final Decision: The court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's request for reinstatement and to give him a personal hearing.
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of discharge passed against the Petitioner vide order dated 22.01.2013 under Annexure-5 and the confirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority vide his order under Annexure-6.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner entered into service as a Constable under Opposite Party No.3 where he joined on 15.12.2011. The Petitioner subsequent to his appointment was attached to the office of Opposite Party No.3 and while so continuing, he was granted with three days C.L from 05.07.2012 to 08.07.2012. But the Petitioner could not join after availing such leave and he joined only on 27.08.2012 by producing medical certificate for the period from 08.07.2012 to 26.08.2012 under Annexure-2.
2.1. The Petitioner subsequently was issued with a show- cause on 03.01.2013 under Annexure-3 wherein it is alleged that the Petitioner remained on unauthorised leave from 09.07.2012 to 27.8.2012 and thereafter absconded from his training w.e.f 30.08.2012 without any leave or permission from the competent authority. The Petitioner though submitted a detailed reply under Annexure-4, but without considering the same in its proper perspective, the Petitioner was discharged from his service vide order dated 22.01.2013 under Annexure-5. The Petitioner seeking his re-instatement though moved the appellate authority, but the said appellate authority refused to entertain such prayer vide his order under Annexure-6. The Petitioner against such order though moved Opposite Party No.2 on 05.07.2016, but no action was taken by the said authority in considering the grievance of the Petitioner.
2.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner because of his illness from 08.07.2012 to 26.07.2012, could not join after availing the leave initially from 05.07.2012 to 08.07.2012, the Petitioner should not have been discharged from his service on the ground of such overstay. It is also contended that after rejection of his prayer for re- instatement, though the petitioner moved Opposite Party no.2 under Annexure-6, but no decision was taken on such plea of the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is contended that since because of his illness, the Petitioner could not join in his service after availing the leave, the order of discharge passed against the petitioner is not in commensurate with the alleged illegalities committed by the Petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the order of discharge be set aside by this Court with a direction on the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner.
3. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
3.1 It is contended that the petitioner while continuing under Opposite Party No.3, he availed C.L. from 05.07.2012 to 08.07.2012. But after availing such leave, the Petitioner never rejoined till he joined on 27.08.2012. The Petitioner after his rejoining, again absconded from the training centre w.e.f 30.08.2012 and never came back to join the duty. Accordingly, the show-cause was issued on 03.01.2013 vide Annexure-3. The Petitioner though submitted his reply to the said show-cause, but in view of the admitted illegalities committed by the Petitioner on taking leave without any intimation in an organisation like the police organisation, the order of discharge has been rightly passed against him by the Opposite Party No.3 and no interference is called for.
It is also contended that the prayer of the Petitioner for his re-instatement was not only rejected by the appellate authority, but also by Opposite Party no.2 vide order communicated on 02.07.2014 under Annexure-G to the counter.
4. I have heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. On the consent of the learned counsel appearing for th
An employee who is absent from work without permission may be discharged from service, but an employee who is absent from work due to illness may be entitled to reinstatement.
Dismissal for desertion disproportionate for long-serving employee overstaying leave due to illness with prior intimation, absent proper inquiry; substitute with deemed discharge upon 20 years pensio....
Unauthorized absence from duty in a disciplined paramilitary force constitutes grave misconduct; disciplinary proceedings conducted ex-parte following the employee's failure to respond to legitimate ....
The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims and did not give any valid reasons for his absence. The dismissal order was validly passed by the Commandant in accordance w....
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.
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....
Regularization of unauthorized absence as Extraordinary Leave without salary precludes the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and consideration of the petitioner's long and clean service record....
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
