The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of disciplinary proceedings and imposing dies-non for over 12 years of unauthorized absence, finding the petitioner unjustified in his absence.
The writ petition stands dismissed with exemplary cost remitted by the Court.
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
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 903 of 2009
Dr. Akhilesh Charan Dubey, S/o. Shri Ishwar Chand Dubey, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Sri Ram Hospital, Dangania Square, Mahadev Ghatt Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
02/08/2018
2
woke up on 10.01.2005 by moving an application asking the respondents to permit him to resign from his service, which was not accepted. Meanwhile the respondents had already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuance of a show cause notice on 01.10.1999 for unauthorized absence of inordinate long period and a charge sheet was also served on 24.05.2000, but it appears that the said charge sheet could not be served upon the petitioner and subsequently another charge sheet was issued on 20.02.2006 and an inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry officer submitted his report on 23.01.2008 based upon which the impugned order was passed on 27.02.2008, whereby the respondents have accepted the resignation of the petitioner w.e.f. 10.01.2005 and so far as the period of absence is concerned, the same has been ordered to be treated as “dies-non”.
3 . The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order so far as imposition of dies-non is concerned is bad in law for the reason that dies-non amounts to a major punishment and under the rules before issuance of a major punishment, it is incumbent upon the department to conduct a departmental enquiry. It was also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority on the basis of which the period has been held to be dies-non is a perverse finding for the reason that the petitioner in fact for his absence had applied for earned leave whereas the respondents show it to have been an application for grant of casual leave. This aspect has not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order.
3
27.02.2008 the intervening period from the date of application for resignation till it was accepted should be treated as period spent on duty and the petitioner should have been suitable given the benefit for the said intervening period. The claim of the petitioner is also on the ground that during the entire period when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, his services were not placed under suspension.
5 . Perusal of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, itself would show that beyond 20.11.1996 till the impugned order was passed i.e. on 27.02.2008 i.e. a period of almost about 12 years, not a single day the petitioner reported for duty for discharging his normal duties as a medical officer. From the date, which has been provided by the petitioner it also reveals that the petitioner also did not take any keen interest or steps for serving the respondents, by insisting on his joining, which he has alleged to have given on 07.05.1997. This conduct of the petitioner and the gap in between the correspondences which the petitioner has made with the respondents itself would show that the petitioner at no point of time was interested in discharging the duties of medical officer under the respondents. It appears that the petitioner was better engaged elsewhere during the said period.
4
said period as dies-non. “Dies-non”, otherwise means that the period does not exist for all practical purposes under the service jurisprudence and it has to be treated as non-productive period.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Ved
2 issues framed by the court
Whether disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence could be quashed.
Whether the imposition of dies-non for the entire unauthorized period warranted judicial interference.
Dr. Akhilesh Charan Dubey
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
