RATAN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Constable in Kolkata Police. He served about 16 years. His all authorised leave were eaten up. In first 14 years he was absent for about 900 days on 25 occasions. On 24 occasions he was either cautioned or fined for a paltry sum. He did not change his attitude. On 25th occasion he was proceeded with departmentally however, imposed a lesser punishment. Fact remains, on 25th occasian he was absent unauthorisedly for 900 days. THE next lap of two years would denote that the petitioner was absent for about 178 days on many occasions. THE Authority proceeded against him departmentally upon giving adequate opportunity of defending himself. Even during enquiry he absented himself unauthorisedly as would appear from the pleadings. He was inflicted a punishment of dismissal from service. By the order of dismissal the Disciplinary Authority, after agreeing with finding of the enquiry, regularised the leave by treating those period totalling about 178 days, spent as "extraordinary leave" under Rule 175(5) of the West Bengal Service Rule, Part-I. THE last paragraph of the order of the Disciplinary Authority appearing at page 28 of the petition is quoted below:

(2.) THE petitioner approached the Tribunal. THE Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside of the order of dismissal. While doing so, the Tribunal relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 511. In the said decision the Apex Court observed in paragraph 5 as follows:

(3.) HE relied on two Apex Court decisions in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Ors., reported in (2004)4 SCC 560 and in the case General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India and Anr. v. Mohd. Nizamuddin, reported in (2006)7 SCC 410.