STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR TAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 1 was inducted into the service of the Public Works Department as a Junior Engineer in the composite State of Uttar Pradesh on 23.09.1970. In due course of time, he came to be promoted as an Assistant Engineer, and thereafter as an Executive Engineer vide orders dated 02.06.1989 and 06.09.1997.

(2.) After the re-organization of the composite State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 1 was allocated to the successor State of Uttarakhand. In 2002 respondent No. 1 was posted at Ghansali. He fell ill on 08.08.2002. In order to avail of medical facilities at Dehradun, he applied for casual leave and submitted the same to the Superintending Engineer. Since the Superintending Engineer was himself on leave (having proceeded to Kanpur), the application for casual leave remained unattended. On being examined at Dehradun, he was advised bed rest. Accordingly, he submitted an application for medical leave on 10.08.2002 alongwith the medical certificate issued to him.

(3.) In the night intervening 10/11.08.2002, there was a cloud burst, leading to a disaster. Being the head of the division, respondent No. 1 was expected to be at the site, however, since he had availed casual leave and thereafter medical leave, he was not present. On account of his absence after the disaster, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.09.2002. Respondent No. 1 assailed the aforesaid suspension order by approaching this Court through Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1382 of 2002. During the course of the proceedings of the aforesaid writ petition, the aforesaid suspension order came to be revoked. As such, respondent No. 1 was reinstated into the service by an order dated 09.12.2002. In spite of his reinstatement, he was issued a charge sheet dated 21.11.2002. He responded to the aforesaid charge sheet by submitting his reply on 20.12.2002. In the inquiry report submitted after the culmination of the departmental proceedings conducted against respondent No. 1, it was concluded that the charges leveled against respondent No. 1 had not been proved. The Enquiry Officer, however, made an observation in the inquiry report to the effect, that being the head of the division, respondent No. 1 ought to have informed his superiors before leaving the headquarters. Even though the charges leveled against respondent No. 1 were not proved, he was inflicted the punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect by an order dated 19.05.2005.