FULKUMAR SARKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged an order of dismissal dated 04.05.2016 passed by the Commandant, 2nd Bn. Tripura State Rifles.

(2.) Brief facts are as under: The petitioner was engaged as a rifleman in the Tripura State Rifles on 19.01.2006. The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 04.02.2015 onwards. The department issued several notices and reminders urging the petitioner to resume duties. Despite which the petitioner did not resume his duties. A charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 09.06.2015 alleging that the petitioner had committed gross misconduct by remaining unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 04.02.2015. In the imputation of charges, it was pointed out that notices and reminders were issued to the petitioner on 07.02.2015, 19.03.2015 and 16.04.2015 to resume duties despite which the petitioner had failed to do so. The petitioner's response was made under letter dated 27.06.2015 in which he admitted that he was absent from duty unauthorisedly, however, cited the reasons of ill health of his wife and minor child. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Upon completion of which, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 08.09.2015. During the inquiry the Inquiry Officer had examined several witnesses, taken on record relevant documents and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and rebut the evidence of the department. He concluded that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved. The petitioner was thereupon served with a provisional order of punishment under communication dated 25.04.2016 by which the disciplinary authority proposed to impose a punishment of dismissal from duty. Petitioner was given 15 (fifteen) days to respond. The petitioner replied to the said communication under letter dated 03.05.2016 stating that he himself was seriously ill for which he had approached his physician on 16.11.2015 and was under treatment till 04.01.2016. Thereafter, he had taken treatment from different doctors. He produced medical certificates in support thereof.

(3.) The disciplinary authority was unmoved. He held that the petitioner had committed serious misconduct. He had remained unauthorized absent for a total period of 337 days in two separate spells. In the punishment order dated 04.05.2016 he noted that the Medical Board, G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala had issued communication to the petitioner to remain present for medical checkup but the petitioner did not remain present before the Board. He eventually thereupon passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the said order the petitioner also preferred departmental appeal which was dismissed. Hence, this petition.