AUNANGSHU ROY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an order treating a particular period for which leave has been applied as 'dies-non' could be passed without initiating a disciplinary proceedings and without giving an opportunity to the government employees to represent his case is sustainable in law?

(2.) The impugned order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the Governor of Triprura reads as follows:-

(3.) Shri B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was posted as Junior Medical Officer-in-charge, South Nehalchandranagar Dispensary applied for commuted leave for 111 days on medical ground for tihe period between 6.11.1995 to 24.2.1996. According to the learned counsel, all the leave applications were supported by medical certificates and therefore, there was no justifiable reason for the authorities concerned to refuse the leave applied for on medical ground. The concerned authority, instead of granting leave or passing any order of refusal, issued the impugned order treating the period as 'dies-non' without any opportunity to the writ petitioner to represent his case. The learned counsel raised grievance on the ground that if the authorities had any doubt about the bonafide of the leave applications, they could have made an enquiry and proceeded against the writ petitioner by initiating departmental proceedings. It is further submitted that the impugned order passed dehor the Rules and without hearing the writ petitioner cannot be sustained in law since it has adverse financial effects. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Shri B.D. Gupta-Vs-State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2472. In para 16 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Besides, the real ratio in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu's case, (1968) 1 SCR 355 (AIR 1968 SC 240) was that if an order affects the employee financially, it must be passed after an objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving the person concerned full opportunity to make out his own case about that order....."