BIJON CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Gogoi, learned Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Counsel represents the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The Petitioner i.e. Sri Bijon Chakraborty, an Ex-Serviceman, was appointed as Office Peon cum- Driver in the Adhoc Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj. The said appointment was made purely on adhoc basis against the post created by the Government. The order of appointment is dated 30.05.2001. The petitioner continued to serve in that capacity for more than five years. In the course of his service, he was afflicted with Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) and was unable to attend office from 15.05.2006. According to the petitioner, the nature of the disease prevented him altogether to move out of his house and/or to attend to his duty. On 05.06.2006, an order was passed under the hand of the District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj discharging the petitioner from service with immediate effect on grounds of unauthorized absence and dissatisfactory service. The said order was passed on the basis of the report furnished by the Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj. Thereafter, a representation was made on 07.06.2006 before the District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj indicating his absence due to medical ailment. It was also indicated that although Casual Leave for the first three days w.e.f. 15.05.2006 to 17.06.2006 had been approved, however, on and from 18.05.2006 he could not attend to his duty due to deterioration of his physical condition. However, in so far as informing the office is concerned, he had asked one of his colleague Sri Madhav Roy to inform the office. In the said representation it was indicated that absence from duty was not intentional, which would find support from the Medical Certificate enclosed to the said representation. A prayer was made for allowing re-employment in the post of Office Peon cum-Driver.

(3.) What had happened to the representation dated 07.06.2006 is not known to the petitioner but certainly it remained unanswered.