STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SANJIB ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Calcutta High Court, interfering with the order of the State Administrative Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 who was an employee under the Government, absented himself from 3.8.84, his services stood terminated on 16.9.1985 in purported exercise of power under Rule 34(3) of West Bengal Services Rules Part-I read with Rule 175(II) w.e.f. the date of his unauthorised absence.

(2.) The respondent initially filed a representation and then approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. On coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the State Administrative Tribunal having been formed, the writ petition stood transferred to the State Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the application taking into account the delayed approach of the employee. The respondent then assailed the order in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that while terminating the services of the respondent No. 1, no procedure prescribed under law has been followed and therefore merely because he has approached the court after some lapse of time the court's power to interfere with the same is not taken away altogether. The High Court also took into account the provisions of Rule 34(3) as provision confers a right on the disciplinary authority to initiate the proceedings for wilful absence from duty after expiry of leave, but since admittedly no proceedings had been initiated and the order of termination and directed reinstatement but did not grant any backwages though it was stated that the seniority of the respondent no. 1 would not be disturbed and continuity of his service has to be maintained. The High Court further observed that the authorities concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is against this order of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that since the respondent had not approached the court for redressing his grievances for unduly long period, the High Court committed error in interfering with the order of terminating notwithstanding the fact that without initiating any proceeding and without following the prescribed procedure, the order of terminating has been passed. We are unable to sustain this argument. On the conceded position that the termination order had been passed without following the prescribed procedure and without even initiating a proceeding and the concerned authority having been given the right to take such appropriate action in accordance with law afresh, the impugned order is unassailable.