SRI TAPAN CHANDRA DAS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (DWS) Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, P.W.D., GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA AND COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (A.R.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for the following relief: -

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he joined Tripura Engineering Service on 04.09.1985 and was posted as Assistant Engineer and thereafter, on 22.05.1993, he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad -hoc basis. While working as Executive Engineer, he had to proceed on leave at different spell on making proper application under compelling circumstances. On 16.03.2006, the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 2) by a Memo dated 16.03.2006 initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him alleging that he was un -authorizedly absent from duties for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2006 (for 10 days) and again from 16.04.2002 to 31.05.2002 (for 46 days) and further from 01.06.2002 to till initiation of the proceeding i.e. on 15.03.2006 (for about 4 years). The disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 16.03.2006 and the inquiry officer submitted report on 24.01.2009 holding that the petitioner was guilty of gross misconduct, and that he remained un -authorized absent for the period from 09.08.2001 to 18.08.2001 for 10 days and 16.04.2002 to 31.05.2002 for 46 days and that while proceeding on leave, he did not hand over the charges of his office to his successor and thereby, committed gross misconduct. For the period from 01.06.2002 to 15.03.2006 though proceeding was initiated, but he was not found guilty of that charge and that period of absence was adjusted against his medical leave and extra -ordinary leave.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas, appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner after making proper application for granting leave, under compelling circumstances was absent from duty which do not constitute willful absence from duty and therefore, such absence from duty though without authority, do not constitute misconduct since the allegation of un -authorized absence is not supported by any fact that the absence was willful.