A former court peon seeking to quash his dismissal from service. The writ court dismissed the petition, rejecting claims that departmental enquiry was vitiated due to non-service of notices and upholding that mental distress did not justify five years of unauthorized absence.
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.
$~
SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.S.S.Sastry, Adv.
versus
THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS) ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat with Mr.Nitesh Singh &Ms.PalakRohmetra, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.49398/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 2 of 6
District Court Rules’) which were notified on 02.12.2013, would be the Disciplinary Authority in these proceedings. On a resolution of the aforesaid query, the petitioner was on 18.05.2016 issued a memorandum under Rule 30(2) of the Delhi District Courts Rules calling upon him to submit his representation, if any, to the enquiry report. Notwithstanding the fact that this memorandum, along with a copy of the enquiry report, was sent to all addresses of the petitioner which were available with the respondent, he remained untraceable, despite the efforts of the SHO of the concerned Police Station. Ultimately, the petitioner was served through publication on 08.12.2016.
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 3 of 6
appeal, the learned Single Judge rejected the petitioner’s contention that the enquiry stood vitiated because of non-compliance of Rule 14(18) of the CCS Rules, on the ground that despite repeated attempts made by the Authorities to serve him with notice of the enquiry, both before its commencement and during its pendency, the petitioner remained absent throughout the disciplinary proceedings and could not, therefore, raise the plea that he had not been duly served. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Single Judge also noticed the fact that the petitioner had admitted his unauthorised absence from duty between 21.04.2012 and 20.03.2017, and his explanation for such absence was found to be unjustifiable.
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 4 of 6
The petitioner, who was working as a peon in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, had admittedly remained on unauthorized leave for almost a period of five years, during which period he neither gave any information to his employer regarding his whereabouts, nor responded to the various calls made to him and the enquiry notices issued to him. The only explanation given by the petitioner was that he was under great mental stress owing to marital discord and, therefore, could not join duty, which explanation in our view does not,in any manner, justify his prolonged absence from duty. The petitioner’s misconduct was not only proved in a validly held departmental enquiry but has, in fact, not even been seriously disputed before us.
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 5 of 6
employee he had the obligations to serve with discipline, devotion and loyalty, which are all found to be lacking in his conduct. In any event, since the petitioner had been granted a personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority who duly considered his explanation and found the same to be meritless, before passing the impugned order, we find that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
REKHA PALLI, J
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DECEMBER 03, 2019 sr
W.P.(C) 12066/2019
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary authority could validly dismiss a government employee who remained absent for five years and failed to respond to multiple notices.
Whether the doctrine of natural justice was violated by the disciplinary proceedings where the employee was absent and served by publication.
Whether the plea of mental distress justified the prolonged unauthorized absence from duty.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SATISH KUMAR
THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS)
VIPIN SANGHI
REKHA PALLI
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
