HARENDRA NATH BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.4.94 passed in Civil Rule No. 980 of 1987 preferred by Sri Harendra Nath Bhattacharjee, the petitioner/appellant.

(2.) We have heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant, assisted by Ms. R. Borah and Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the State of Assam.

(3.) The relevant facts for the purposes of adjudication of the present appeal are that, admittedly, the petitioner/ appellant was employed as a UDA in the State Government Service. It is also not disputed that the petitioner/ appellant was absent from his duty with effect from 5.7.72 to 4.4.75 (for a period of four years nine months). After 44.75, the petitioner was allowed to join the duties and thereafter disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against him on the charges that he had been absent from duty without obtaining leave for a period of four years and nine months which constitutes a serious misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority after holding an inquiry found that the charges levelled against the petitioner/appellant stood proved and ordered his compulsory retirement as a measure of punishment. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed which was rejected. Thereafter another appeal was preferred before the Assam Administrative Tribunal which too was dismissed. It is thereafter that the Civil Rule out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed challenging the order of dismissal and the orders passed by the appellate authority.