HARISINGH Vs. STATEW OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is on the verge of retirement had filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to assail the validity of the order dated 26.7.2001 whereby petitioner's absence from duty from 19.10.2001 to 23.2.2002 has been treated as period spent on dies non.

(2.) THE relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present case are as under. Petitioner is a member of the State Administrative Service and was posted as Joint Collector, Jhabua. By order dated 27.9.2001, the services of the petitioner along with other Joint Collectors were lent to the Narmada Valley Development Authority and the petitioner was posted as Land Acquisition-Cum-Rehabilitation officer, NHDC, Khandwa. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner was relieved on 18.10.2001. As usual instead of carrying out the said order, petitioner tried to resist it by filing an original application before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench, where it was registered as O.A. No. 1271/01. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal on 8.10.2001. Immediately petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court wherein show cause notices were issued to the respondents. The writ petition came up for orders on interim relief on 19.10.2001. Learned counsel appearing for respondent sought time on that date to file reply while learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for interim relief. While allowing the prayer for time as made by the respondent, the Division Bench of this Court directed that no punitive action shall be taken against the petitioner until further orders of the Court. The said writ petition was ultimately decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 18.2.2002 with the direction to the petitioner to take up the new assignment within ten days from the date of the order with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for posting under the control of the G.A.D. as he has little less than two years service left to his credit. Petitioner submitted the joining and assumed duties on 25.2.2002.

(3.) THE application was duly accompanied by the medical certificate. Petitioner had 360 days balance leave in his leave account, therefore, he sought the medical leave. The application was duly recommended and forwarded to the G.A.D. by the NHDC, Khandwa as is clear from Annexure A-7 dates 5.6.2002. There was some correspondence between the G.A.D. and NHDC and the requirements raised by the G.A.D. were met by the NHDC. Yet by the order impugned instead of sanctioning any leave, the period has been treated as dies non. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order on the ground that before issuing the order impugned, petitioner was neither afforded any opportunity of hearing nor any enquiry was held. He submitted that sufficient leave was available in the leave account, therefore, he ought to have been given leave. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that treating this period as dies non has serious civil consequences and, therefore, an enquiry was all the more necessary.