ABDUL MALIK BARBHUIYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayer.

(2.) The facts projected in the petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a skilled worker on 18/5/1989 in the Public Health Engineering Department at Silchar Division I and was subsequently promoted as Work Charged Khalasi on 29/8/1989. It is projected that on 30/3/1996, the petitioner had sustained injuries due to electric shock while on duty for which hospitalization and treatment for a long period was required. The petitioner claims to have joined back in service on 16/7/1999. However, his salaries were paid only up to July 1996. The petitioner claims to have applied for medical leave for the period of absence till 15/7/1999. An order dtd. 24/12/2003 has also been relied upon by the petitioner whereby the services of the petitioners with many Work Charged employees were regularized.

(3.) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)/4665/2005 with a direction for arrear salaries which was disposed of by this Court by directing payment of the salaries after verification of the records. As no action was taken, the petitioner had filed a second writ petition WP(C)/1363/2013 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 4/6/2013 allowing the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer, PHE along with the medical papers for regularization of his absence of leave and the authority to pass necessary orders for payment of the salaries. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a Speaking Order has been passed on 17/12/2013 holding that the petitioner had not submitted the original medical documents and only Xerox copies were submitted. A Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide Show Cause Notice dtd. 13/3/2014 which the petitioner had replied on 19/3/2014. It is the contention of the petitioner that he was not aware of any action towards holding an enquiry and vide the impugned order dtd. 2/7/2014, the petitioner was dismissed from service with retrospective effect from 1/8/1996 on the charge of unauthorized absence. It is the validity and legality of the aforesaid action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.