Swapan Bhowmik vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Petitioner is employed as a Warder in Government Jail. He was transferred from present Directorate to Kendriya Sanshodhanagar, Bishalgarh by an order dated 02.11.2017. He did not report to the place of transfer for a long time, instead citing his reason of illness for such absence. A show cause notice was issued for his un-authorized absence on 16.02.2018. He replied to the notice under letter dated 28.02.2018 citing his illness and the reason for not reporting to the place of transfer. The competent authority passed the impugned order dated 06.04.2018, relevant portion of which reads as under:

"WHEREAS, Shri Bhowmik, Warder has been unauthorizedly absent from the Government duties w.e.f 01/11/2017 to 17/01/2018 for 78 (Seventy eight) days without any prior approval of the authority.

WHEREAS, accordingly Shri Bhowmik, Warder was asked to explain his misconduct vide No-I-134/IGP/2015 (P-IV)/663-65 dated-16/02/2018. Subsequently, he has submitted his reply against the explanation letter on-28/02/2018.

WHEREAS, Thereafter, Shri Bhowmik, Warder has joined on duties on 27/03/2018 at Kendriya Sanshodhanagar, Bishalgarh after remaining absent himself from the Government duties a total period of 146 days and submitted medical illness certificates issued by different doctors w.e.f.01/11/2017 to 10/12/2017 and 10/01/2018 to 24/01/2018, subsequently 26/01/2018 to 26.03.2018.

Now, therefore, after carefully going through the said reply by Shri Swapan Bhowmik, Warder, the undersigned considers it fit to treat the period of absence for which no leave application is furnish yet as "dies-non". Accordingly, the period of unauthorized absence w.e.f 11/12/2017 to 09/01/2018 and subsequently, 25/01/2018 total 31 days be treated as "Dies-non".

This is to be recorded in his service book accordingly."

As per this order, thus, out of the total period of absence of 146 days, to the extent the authority found that he had applied for leave with supporting medical certificates, the same was granted. The authority however, was of the opinion that for the period between 11.12.2017 to 09.01.2018 and thereafter, on 25.01.2018 for a total period of 31 days his absence was not backed by application for leave supported by medical certificate. This period was, therefore, treated as "dies-non".

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even for the said disputed period of 31 days, the petitioner had sent leave applications with supporting medical certificates by post. The petitioner has produced postal receipts of such applications.

In fact, the present case when the authorities have accepted the petitioner's explanation for absence, granted leave as due to him qua majority of the period of absence to the extent the authority found medical certificates on record and for the disputed period of 31 days also the petitioner's contention is that such applications were actually made through post, let the petitioner file fresh copies of such leave applications with supporting medical certificates for the aforesaid period of 31 days before the leave sanctioning authority, who shall examine the same and pass appropriate order thereon. If the leave applications and medical certificates are found in order, leave shall be granted as due to him. For such purpose, the impugned order is set aside.

With these directions, the petition is disposed of.