The dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence is valid if supported by evidence and no breach of natural justice occurs during the disciplinary inquiry.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The appellant, an ex-employee of the Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF for short) has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 20.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1343/2016 whereby the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of dismissal of the appellant from service for his long unauthorized absence from duty and dismissed his writ petition.

2. The factual context of the case is as under:-

The appellant who was a constable in CRPF proceeded on sanctioned leave for a period of 60 days commencing from 11.05.2009 to 09.07.2009. As stated by the appellant, while he was travelling back from his home-town to the place of posting for resuming duties, he fell sick. Moreover, there was road blockage due to landslide which prevented the appellant from returning to his place of posting on completion of his leave period. For these multifarious reasons, he could not join his duty. He sent intimation to his department about his inabilities to resume duties. He thereafter returned to Kulai in Dhalai District i.e. his home-town and received treatment in Kulai Primary Health Center. For further treatment he came to Agartala and received treatment from AGMC and GBP Hospital. Thereafter, he had also gone to Chennai where he received treatment from Apollo Hospital, Chennai up to 21.08.2009. From there, he returned home and continued to take treatment from the local hospital.

3. According to the appellant, he communicated to his department all these developments, despite which, the department initiated and conducted an ex parte inquiry and based on the ex parte inquiry report passed an order of dismissal from service which was illegal and untenable in law. Aggrieved with his dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority he filed an appeal before the DIG, CRPF who dismissed his appeal. Appellant had challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by filing a revision petition which was also dismissed. Then he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1343/2016 seeking the following relieves:

'(i) Admit this writ petition,

(ii) Issue notice upon the Respondents,

(iii) Call for the records,

And

(iv) After hearing the parties be pleased to set aside the Order of the Revisional Authority dated 27.04.2016 and allow the Petitioner to join in his service;

And/or

Pass any other Order or Orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.'

4. In reply, respondents filed counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge on 13.02.2017. It has been asserted by the respondents in their counter affidavit that petitioner was sanctioned 60 days Earned Leave with effect from 11.05.2009 to 09.07.2009. He was due to report for duty on 10.07.2009. But, he unauthorizedly overstayed with effect from 10.07.2009. The respondents further asserted that despite repeated communications, the appellant neither submitted any medical document in support of his illness nor he reported for duty. The story that he was prevented from undertaking journey to Dimapur for resuming duty due to landslide and road blockage were all manufactured by him because he could not submit any proof in support of the projected story. Despite receiving several communications for reporting for duty, petitioner maintained absolute silence and remained absent from duty over a long period of time. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and the appellant was asked to submit his written representation to the Disciplinary Authority within 10 days and he was warned that the enquiry would be conducted ex-parte in case of his non-participation. Since the appellant did not turn up, ex-parte DP was held against him. In departmental enquiry, the c