AMZAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner being aggrieved with his removal from service on account of unauthorized absence, which he claims is not willful, but due to compelling circumstances is before this Court, assailing the order of removal dtd. 17/6/2020, passed by the respondent No.4, and the appellate order dt. 15/2/2021, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the order of removal has been upheld.

(2.) The petitioner who was serving in the Meghalaya Police, due to his unauthorized absence for the period from 14/12/2019 to 18/3/2020, without any information to his superiors was subjected to departmental proceedings. The said proceedings culminated in the orders of removal from service, which the petitioner alleges is arbitrary, and the punishment awarded disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. It has also been contended that, adequate opportunity was not afforded to the writ petitioner and that there was no willful absence from duty as the petitioner was hospitalized and suffering from psychiatric issues, brought upon by alcohol dependency.

(3.) Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was unable to attend his duties, as he was undergoing treatment for his physical and psychiatric ailments, and in the departmental proceedings, while admitting to the unauthorized absence before the Enquiry Officer, however did not file any show-cause, but had produced medical certificates indicating his medical condition. He submits that, the petitioner could not attend to his duties or inform his superiors, is due to these compelling circumstances and his absence can in no manner, be considered as willful. Learned counsel has further submitted that, on the earlier occasions, when he was absent without leave or information, the respondents had condoned the same, as they were aware about his medical condition, but for the last period of his unauthorized absence, he has been harshly dealt with, which is disproportionate to the act of misconduct. At the most he submits, an order of compulsory retirement could have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.