Abhijit Sukla Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 10.07.2017 by which he is dismissed from service.

Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner was appointed as a Rifleman (GD) in Tripura State Rifles on 25.09.2002. The petitioner was granted earned leave of 20 days from 22.12.2015 to 10.01.2016. After availing such earned leave, the petitioner did not resume his duties. He remained on unauthorized leave for a long period of time on account of which the disciplinary authority instituted a departmental inquiry against the petitioner by issuing a departmental charge sheet dated 15.09.2016. The charge against the petitioner was that after availing 20 days of earned leave, the petitioner was to resume duty on 10.01.2016. However, he remained continuously on unauthorized leave from 11.01.2016 till the date of issuance of the charge sheet. It was alleged that this act of the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of the Tripura State Rifles, thus committing gross misconduct.

It appears that several attempts at serving notices to the petitioner during the departmental inquiry were made by the department despite which the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings. The inquiry officer, therefore, conducted an ex parte departmental inquiry and submitted his report dated 25.05.2017 to the disciplinary authority. In this report itself he had outlined the reasons for conducting ex parte departmental inquiry. He noted that four notices were served to the petitioner through special messengers and registered post with AD at his home address giving him ample opportunity to participate in the departmental inquiry by engaging a defence assistant despite which the petitioner chose to remain ex parte.

He noted that the petitioner after completion of the leave period failed to resume duty. He thus remained continuously absent without leave. His absence continued even after the issuance of the charge sheet. He therefore held that the charge was proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority passed a provisional order dated 08.06.2017 accepting the findings of the inquiry officer and proposing a punishment of dismissal from service for the proved misconduct. The petitioner was given 15 days time to make his representation to such a proposal. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 imposing the punishment of striking of the name of the petitioner from the strength of the force and further provided that the entire period between 11.01.2016 to 10.07.2017, a total of 547 days be treated as 'Dies-non'. In this order, he noted that the provisional order of punishment was provided the petitioner giving him opportunity to make his representation. The petitioner failed to avail of such opportunity and therefore, the said order was passed.

The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Pal submitted that the petitioner had valid reasons for not resuming duty. His father was seriously ill. The petitioner could not resume duty since he had to look after his father. The petitioner has produced medical certificates in support of the averment that his father was ill. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient opportunity of defending himself was not granted to the petitioner during the conduct of the inquiry. In any case, the disciplinary authority failed to notice that the absence of the petitioner was not willful. Such absence therefore would not amount to misconduct.

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period of time without any intimation to the department. Departmental inquiry was instituted. The petitioner did not participate in such proceedings. The inquiry therefore had to be conducted ex parte. The charge was proved. The petitioner had not produced any evidence of serious illness of his father before the disciplinary authority. Even the documents produced before this Court are not sufficient to justify his long unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner was a member of Tripura State Rifles, a disciplined force. His unauthorized absence, therefore, cannot be countenanced.

The facts on record are sufficiently clear. The petitioner availed of 20 days of earned leave. After completion of such period, the petitioner was required to resume duty, which he did not. Even when the charge sheet was issued alleging that by his long unauthorized absence, he had committed misconduct, the petitioner neither resumed duty nor participated in the departmental proceedings. The departmental inquiry therefore was conducted ex parte. Inquiry officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority passed a provisional order deciding to accept the findings of the inquiry officer and proposed a punishment. The petitioner was given 15 days to make his representation. This opportunity also the petitioner did not avail. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned order striking the name of the petitioner from the force and treating the entire period in excess of 500 days as 'Dies-non'.

I do not find that the disciplinary authority has committed any error. The petitioner has not cited any reason for his absence without leave. His absence was not for a short period of time. It exceeded 500 days. They had made no intimation to the department about the illness of his father from resume duty. He did not participate in the departmental proceedings to prove that his absence was not willful. Even the documents in support of the averment that his father was ill along with his petition do not inspire confidence. The certificates only indicate that the father was suffering from abdominal pain without further elaborating the reason for such pain, the kind of treatment of his father was undergoing of the seriousness of the disease which would prevent the petitioner from resuming duty for long period of time, there to without intimation to the employer. We may recall, the petitioner was a member of a disciplined force. His long, unauthorized absence from duty cannot be pardoned.

No case for interference is made out. The Petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.