Dhirendra Kumar Das Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Petitioner has thrown challenge to the order dated 18.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) whereby he has been dismissed from the service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duties.

¶18

Case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner, a member of Scheduled Caste community, joined the service as a Revenue Karamchari on 12.02.1981 in the erstwhile State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State, his service was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. During service tenure, he was considered for promotion on 12.02.1994. Thereafter, he remained in service for 35 years and lastly worked as a Revenue Karamchari at Katkamsandi Circle, Hazaribagh. On 07.12.2004, petitioner was transferred from Sadar Circle, Hazaribagh to Patratu Circle, Hazaribagh. He worked to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents but salary was not paid due to incorrect last pay certificate. Petitioner made representation before the Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner for correction in the last pay certificate and for making payment but the same was never corrected and no payments were made. Petitioner

¶19

RC 1 W.P. (S) No. 2972 of 2016

¶20

while working on 18.12.2004 fell ill and remained on medical leave from 22.12.2004 to 06.12.2005 and the same was duly informed to the respondents. During medical leave, petitioner was transferred from Patratu Circle to Katkamsandi Circle by order issued vide memo no. 985, dated 28.09.2005, by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. The joining of the petitioner was thereafter not accepted neither petitioner was paid salary. The Circle Officer at Katkamsandi Circle did not accept joining of the petitioner nor his joining was accepted at Patratu. Thereafter, proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was held guilty of unauthorized absence from 09.05.2006. Petitioner having been found guilty of charges by the Deputy Commissioner, punishment of stoppage of increment was passed though petitioner had submitted several representations regarding his illness and also for extension of medical leave to the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, got the matter duly inquired and it was found that rest for six months only was provided to the petitioner and petitioner did not join the duties thereafter. It is further case of the petitioner that he was on medical leave till 24.02.2016 and also fitness certificate was issued and he was to give joining on 25.02.2016 at his work place but in the mean-time he was served with order of dismissal from the service. Assailing the order of dismissal, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.

¶21

Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assisted by Mr. Ramchander Sahu vociferously argues that petitioner has served the department for 25 years but he has been dismissed from the service on the ground of unauthorized absence. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that petitioner had taken leave from the Department and, thereafter, proceeded for leave as he was ill. Learned counsel submits that further also he made an application for extension of leave since he had not recovered from the illness. Learned counsel further argues that though case has been made out for unauthorized absence of nine years but he was stopped from resuming the duties. Petitioner’s representation filed before the

¶22

2 W.P. (S) No. 2972 of 2016

¶23

RC

¶24

respondents clearly shows that respondents were very much aware about illness of the petitioner. It has been further argued that even if petitioner was stopped from joining on the said post and was not allowed to work, it was open for the respondents to forfeit salary but order of dismissal from the service is too harsh taking into account that petitioner has diligently worked for more than 25 years. Learned counsel further argued that even if period of absence is treated as unauthorized, but the same was not intentional rather happened due to compelling facts and circumstances, particularly health issue and as such after quashment of order of dismissal, respondents may be directed to consider case of the petitioner for payment of retiral and pensionary benefits.

¶25

Ms. Amrita Bannerjee, AC to learned GP-I representing State argues that the impugned order is fully justified. Petitioner has remained absent from duty for nine long years. As per rule, if any employee remaining absent for more than five years, dismissal is the only punishment. Referring to Rule 76(Kh) of the Jharkhand Service Rule, it has been argued that there is no illegality or any infirmity in the order. Petitioner was punished by way of dismissal by a duly constituted departmental proceeding and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition.

¶26

Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that petitioner, a Class-IV employee of the department, working as a Revenue Karamchari, remained absent for very long period unauthorizedly due to illness, which cannot be denied. It is admitted fact that petitioner was granted leave by competent authority which was however not extended further. From the various documents which has not been denied by the respondents, it appears that petitioner’s joining after transfer was not accepted and even salary for the period was not paid due to incorrect last pay certificate. It was bounden duty of the respondents to make correction in last pay certificate and payment of salary be made to the petitioner. The Class-IV employees cannot be harassed by the high ranking officers in this fashion. However, since petitioner did

¶27

3 W.P. (S) No. 2972 of 2016

¶28

RC

¶29

not work for the period he remained on unauthorized leave, he is not entitled for the salary for the said period on the ground of no work no pay. The matter is remitted before the respondents authority to reconsider the case taking into account that he has worked for 25 long years.

¶30

It has been brought to the notice by the respondents that petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 and was dismissed on 06.12.2016. He was on unauthorized leave for nine years. So, it can comfortably calculated that petitioner worked for 25 years.

¶31

Be that as it may, since order of dismissal dated 18.02.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision on quantum of punishment. Since petitioner has admittedly worked for 25 years and absence was not intentional rather on compelling circumstances, respondents are directed to pass reasoned order on quantum of punishment other than order of dismissal, removal from service or compulsory retirement. Since petitioner has already retired, there cannot be any order for reinstatement. However, after quashment of order of dismissal, if it is found that petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits, the same be extended to him within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶33

4

¶34

W.P. (S) No. 2972 of 2016

¶35

RC

Dhirendra Kumar Das v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Kumar Das v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Mahato Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Represented Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Soni Devi Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Shambhu Nath Jha Vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department

Sushma Neelam Soreng Vs the State of Jharkhand

Devendra Nath Dubey Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority Thro Its Chairman