Surender Lal vs State of H.P.

Justice V.K Ahuja, J.—Application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was filed before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal which on abolition of the Tribunal was registered in this Court as writ petition. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Patwari and he was charge sheeted vide Annexure A-1 for absence from duty from 18.9.1994 to 21.9.1996 for two years.

An inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer, who vide his report at page-29 Annexure A-6, found the petitioner guilty of the charge of absence from duty for a long period of two years. An appeal was preferred by the delinquent and the appellant authority vide his order dated 23rd November, 2002, Annexure A-7 observed that the charge was duly substantiated and they stand proved and accordingly his appeal was rejected and the absence from duty was held to be treated as dies-on and break in service. Thereafter a revision was preferred before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 18.12.2004, Annexure A-11 at page 47 dismissed the revision filed by the official and the order for removal of service was upheld. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the petition before the erstwhile Administrative Tribunal, which has now been registered as writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the inquiry file also.

The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner were that in deciding the revision petition, the Financial Commissioner had also looked into the some facts in regard to earlier charge which was not proper and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to argue his case by supplying him a copy of inquiry report or appeal. Nothing is made out from the grounds of the petition filed by the petitioner that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner.

I have gone through the inquiry file. There is a letter from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour dated 18.2.2002, vide which the copy of inquiry report was sent to the petitioner by post and the receipt is also attached with the inquiry report at page 71 bearing the signatures of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea raised that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner which also falsifies from the fact that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and then also filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which clearly proves that he was aware of the grounds taken by both these Authorities in deciding the appeal as well as revision petition filed by the petitioner.

During the course of arguments, I had specifically put up to the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any document which had been placed on record and proved by the petitioner that his absence from duty was unintentional due to the ailment of his daughter. No record has been produced of any hospital to show that the petitioner''s daughter was admitted during this period of two years absence or that she was subsequently ill or was admitted in the hospital. The mere fact that the petitioner had sent a telegram in this regard to his office as well as 2-3 letters which are not sufficient to prove his absence from duty.

My attention has been drawn to a letter written by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice issued to him on 28.4.1997 in which he has stated that he had enclosed a medical certificate of 1.9.1996 before the Tehsildar Shilai. However, there is nothing in the letter itself that the petitioner has enclosed any certificate of admission of his daughter in the hospital for a period of two years for which he remained absent. Therefore, the assertion made by the petitioner was not at all substantiated by him before the Inquiry Officer.

The petitioner was posted at responsible post of Patwari and he was required to proceed on leave by taking prior application for absence. In case, absence was justified and he could not apply before hand then fact could have been proved by him during the course of inquiry by producing the relevant medical certificates which could prove that his daughter was admitted in the hospital and therefore, sympathetic view could have been taken against the delinquent. However, he failed to prove his absence from duty for a period of two years due to the illness of his daughter or his own illness, since, no medical certificate was proved and therefore, Inquiry Officer had rightly concluded that his absence for about two years was not at all justified A government employee can not proceed on leave without prior sanction and in case the facts are such that he could not take prior sanction due to the illness of his daughter or his own ailment, he has to prove that he was admitted in the hospital or his daughter was admitted in the hospital during this period and medical certificates are required to be duly proved which could prove his absence from duty which was not done by the petitioner. The petitioner did not join duties for a period of two years and all the opportunities were given to him to lead evidence in which he had failed. He also filed appeal as well as revision and both were dismissed as against the petitioner. No case is made out for exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court by quashing of those proceedings or the order of dismissal of service. There is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.