ZAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Upadhya, learned State counsel. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.01.2003 (Annexure -4) by which he has been removed from service pursuant to a departmental proceeding. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order of removal has also been dismissed by Annexure -6 order dated 05.11.2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) MR . Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was absent from duty due to unavoidable circumstances (illness), the disciplinary authority ought to have considered the case leniently. He submits that the penalty imposed is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner. countering the said argument, Mr. Upadhya, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner being a member of disciplined force, ought not have acted in such a manner of remaining absent from duty on number of occasions. He submits that even after issuance of charge sheet, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for a period of one year which will go to show that the petitioner was not at all interested in the job.

(3.) AFTER making the aforesaid statement in paragraph -3 in the writ petition and without stating anything as to whether the petitioner had resumed his duty or not, he has stated in paragraph -4 that in the month of October, 1995 he again fell ill and the departmental doctor referred him to GMC & H for better treatment. According to the petitioner, his treatment continued upto 10.11.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that on being declared medically fit, he was waiting to resume duty. On 20.02.1996, the doctor allowed him to attend duty, but in utter surprise he was placed under suspension and charge sheets dated 12.02.1996 and 16.02.1996 were served on him.