BIPLAB CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Group-D under the respondent No.2. He underwent treatment for a period of 216 days outside Tripura and after his return he was served a notice for his unauthorized absence for such period. After receipt of his representation, the respondent had referred his case to the State Medical Board, Government of Tripura. After receipt of the information of the Medical Board, respondent No.2 declared the period of his absence as unauthorized and this period was treated as dies-non for all the purposes including increments, leave and pension. However, the petitioner was allowed to continue his service as Group-D in the said department.

(3.) Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that there was total violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent had imposed major penalty upon the petitioner. According to him a full-fledged inquiry ought to have been initiated by the respondent and in absence of such full-fledged inquiry the entire process of declaring the period as dies-non, is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.