The petitioner challenged dismissal orders against her husband for absenteeism in police service. The Court found the enquiry officer proved the charges based on witness examination, rejected the medical certificate alsos insufficient evidence for illness, and dismissed the writ petition having no merit.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3863 of 2008
-----
Dinesh Prasad Singh ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Director General of Police, Ranchi
3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Area, Bokaro 4.The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad
.… … ... Respondents -----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Shahi, AC to A.A.G II
-----
Order No. 13 : Dated 17th July, 2019
Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Shahi, A.C to learned A.A.G II for the respondents.
2. The husband of the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 21.03.2003, whereby the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from services and for quashing order dated 27.12.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the husband of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The husband of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector at Dhanbad, remained absent for the period 26.10.1999 to 30.06.2007. For this, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner. After examining the witnesses, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the husband of the petitioner has been proved, basing on which, the impugned order 21.03.2003 has been passed whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner died during pendency of the writ petition on 18.07.2010 and now widow-wife is pursing the case. On merit of case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the enquiry proceeding, the delinquent-employee was never served with any show cause notice, hence he could not place his defence and proceeding ended ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the husband of the petitioner fell ill during the period, which he remained absent, as such he was not able to report for duty. In this connection, he referred to Annexure 4 to the writ petition, which is a medical certificate, issued by Dr. S. Ali Imam of Dr. Shafique Memorial Hospital, Patna, wherein it has been certified that the delinquent-employee is suffering from acute mental disease and he was under regular treatment from 12.06.1999 to 11.01.2001 and was advised to consult a mental physician/surgeon in the mental hospital. Besides this, no other document has been placed by the petitioner to substantiate the case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsState referring to Annexure 4 to the writ petition submits that in the medical certificate, it has clearly been mentioned that it is 'not for medicolegal purpose', hence otherwise also it is of no help to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner by way of document at Annexure 4 developed a case of alibi. It has further been submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding, the deceased-employee was given several opportunities to appear and give his defense through several letters on his local
address but the husband of the petitioner did not appear. Hence, no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned orders.
6. Seeing the nature of dispute and the findings recorded by enquiry officer basing on which impugned order of dismissal has been passed, no case of interference is made out.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Alankar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal order passed against the husband of the petitioner due to absence.
Whether the non-service of show cause notice and ex-parte proceeding vitiated the impugned orders.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dinesh Prasad Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
