Ashwini Kumar Verma vs State of M.P. and others

Hon''ble Shri N.K. Mody, J.—The prayer in the petition is for quashment of order Annexures P/1 and P/6, whereby minor penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed, was maintained. Short facts of the case are that petitioner was posted as SDO, Forest, Sabalgarh, for the period we.f. 30.9.2003 to 1.9.2006. It was alleged that petitioner was sick when the petitioner was relieved and remained on leave from 7.8.2006 to 22.8.2006. The application was filed by the petitioner after joining on 23.8.2006. Petitioner was charged for the alleged misconduct. After holding an enquiry it was found that petitioner is habitual to remain on leave without any intimation and the penalty was imposed, which was maintained in appeal against which present petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order passed by disciplinary authority, which was maintained by the appellate authority are illegal, incorrect and deserve to be quashed. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India, reported in 2012 (2) Supreme 254), wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court held that allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, disciplinary authority is required to prove that absence is wilful, in absence of such finding, absence would not amount to misconduct. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned orders passed by disciplinary authority and appellate authority be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner remained absent without any reason. It is submitted that petitioner left Sabalgarh without giving any intimation and without submitting any application and submitted his joining form on 23.8.2006. It is submitted that alongwith the joining report application for leave from 7.8.2006 to 22.8.2006 was filed. At that time only sickness/fitness certificate of Medical Officer, Ratlam was filed. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. It is settled position of law that the disciplinary authority has to come to the conclusion while imposing the penalty that the absence is willful and in absence of such findings, absence would not amounts to misconduct. In the present case disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that the petitioner is habitual to remain absent. It was also found that on previous occasions also the petitioner remained absent on number of times. These findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Petitioner is a responsible Officer, as the petitioner is SDO (Forest). In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits, hence the same stands dismissed.