Special Appeal dismissed. The High Court confirmed that the appellant abandoned service after 20 years of absence without communicating reasons or applying for leave, negating the need for a disciplinary enquiry despite relaya precedent requiring it for dismissal.
Special Appeal No. 138 of 2018 dismissed; Single Bench order upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 138 of 2018
Appellant :- Surendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Javed Husain Khan, Gulrez Khan, Sr. Advocate W.H. Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.
To examine correctness of the order dated 18th January, 2018 instant appeal is preferred. By the order aforesaid, Learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner was not terminated from service as a disciplinary measure but he himself abandoned the same.
On behalf of the appellant, it is urged that the appellant was holding a civil post and he could have not been dismissed or removed or terminated from service in any manner without holding an enquiry as prescribed under the applicable discipline and appeal rules. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shobha Nelson Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 2017 SC 5569 and Learned Single Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (Writ-A No. 50556 of 2000), decided on 3rd August, 2018.
On going through the averments contained in the petition for writ, the record annexed thereto and the judgment impugned, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appellant while in service of the respondents remained absent from duties from the year 1995 to 2015. In entire period of twenty years, he never communicated the employer about any reason for remaining absent from duties. It is the position admitted that he also never applied for any kind of leave or any impediment for joining the duties. In the petition for writ, an averment is made that in the period
-2-
concerned, the appellant-petitioner was seriously ill and, therefore, he failed to attend the duties. The conduct of the appellant reflects that, as a matter of fact, he abandoned the service and, therefore, no effort was ever made by him to join the duties or to communicate the employer about the reasons for not coming to service. So far as the case of Shobha Nelson (supra) is concerned, that is having no application in the case in hand. Those are the matters where an employee overstayed the leave period and thereafter her services came to be ceased automatically. So far as the Learned Single Bench judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Singh (supra) is concerned, it would be appropriate to state that this judgment does not contain necessary facts and the Learned Single Bench examined the case by treating the appellant-petitioner therein as a person absented unauthorizedly and not from the aspect of voluntary abandoned from service. In the instant matter, adequate material is available to draw an inference to the effect that the appellant abandoned the services. If there had been no such intention, there was no reason for not communicating the impediments in joining the duties. As a matter of fact, he voluntarily abandoned the service and, as such, there was no need to hold any enquiry. We are aware of this fact that merely the long span of absence cannot be a reason for drawing such inference but beside the period of 20 years of absence, the non-communication for not coming on duties though such option and means were available. The employer in such circumstances had no option but to infer about abandonment of service. Learned Single Bench, as such, has not committed any error that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The Appeal hence is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020 VMA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a 20-year absence from duty without communication to the employer constitutes voluntary abandonment of service dispensing with inquiry.
Whether the Learned Single Bench erred in concluding that the appellant abandoned service without holding a disciplinary enquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shobha Nelson Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and othersDistinguished¶9
Shobha Nelson Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 2017 SC 5569 · Who else cites this
Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and OthersDistinguished¶9
Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (Writ-A No. 50556 of 2000)
Surendra Kumar
State Of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
