RADHA RAMAN SAHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 28/7/1969 (Annexure 6), as modified by the order dated 20/9/1969 (Annexure 8), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas, Dumka (respondent no. 3) terminating his services and the order dated 27/10/1970 (Annexure 10) refusing to review the order on the review application filed by the petitioner as well as the order dated 25/7/1974 passed by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 2), dismissing his appeal, a copy of which is Annexure 11 to the writ application.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a temporary lower division clerk in the Dumka Collectorate by the Deputy Commissioner (respondent no. 3) on his competing at a written test examination and jointed sometime in November, 1963. He was working as a store keeper in the office of the Block Development Officer at Hiranpur. On 24/4/1968, he went on casual leave for four days upto 27/4/1968 which was duly sanctioned by the Block Development Officer. He, however, did not report to duty and went on extending his leave up to 18/8/1969. The case of the petitioner is that he was suffering from intiric fever and was advised bed rest from 1/5/1968 to 18/8/1969. The certificate obtained by a doctor in support of this fact was forwarded to the authorities concerned and a copy of the same has been made (Annexure 2) to the writ application. The case of the respondents is that when the petitioner did not return to duty on 29/4/1968 (28/4/1968 being a Sunday) (after the expiry of the casual leave granted to him by the Block Development Officer, a telegram was sent to him on 1/5/1968 by the Block Development Officer reading "overstay on leave leads to suspension. Join immediately". The petitioner then sent an application for extension of the leave from 29.4.1968 on ground of his indisposition. The application for leave, however, was rejected by the Block Development Officer, who by a letter dated 11.5.1968 called upon the petitioner to join his duties immediately. The petitioner instead sent another application for leave from 5/5/1968 to 12/5/1968 on the same ground, but without any medical certificate. Thereafter the petitioner did not make any application for leave and stayed at home without any information till 18/8/1969, as already said above. The Block Development Officer, Hiranpur, then submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur, regarding the unauthorised absence of the petitioner by his letter dated 16/5/1968, with a copy to the petitioner as well. In these circumstances, the services of the petitioner were dispensed with by respondent no. 3 for his unauthorised absence from duty for a considerable long period, by order dated 28.7.1969, a copy of which was sent to the petitioner. After the above order, the medical certificate dated 18.8.1969 was filed by the petitioner along with a petition for review his case before the Deputy Commissioner, which, however, was rejected by his order dated 27.10.1970 (Annexure 10).

(3.) It appears that on receiving the report of the Block Development Officer, Hiranpur, some kind of inquiry was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to enquire into the matter. The Block Development Officer, by his letter dated 2.8.1968, a copy of which has been made (Annexure 3) to the writ application, informed the petitioner that he had to submit him his explanation in his office within three days of the receipt of the same, as directed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Pakur, and the Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas, Dumka, on the points raised in the "particular of charges" which was enclosed to the said letter and a copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner and has been separately marked as (Annexure 4 to the writ application. It consists of seven paragraphs. The allegations made in the charges only narrate the facts of petitioner originally going on casual leave on the ground of urgent domestic work for a period of four days on the leave being sanctioned and thereafter overstaying without proper application and his failure to join duties in spite of telegrams and repeated directions given by the Block Development Officer. By that time the petitioner had not joined his duties nor had sent any further intimation. The so-called charge, intimated the petitioner that "by taking casual leave and thereafter extending it for an indefinite period for which no leave is due at your credit is a serious offence. According to rule no Government servant can be allowed to remain absent from duty on causal leave for not more than twelve days at a time......you are guilty of grave misconduct, wilful neglect of duty, disobedience of order of superior officer and indisciplined behaviours". The petitioner was, accordingly, called upon to explain as to why he should not be dismissed or discharged or otherwise suitably punished for the aforesaid charges. It is this document which is the sheet-anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a departmental proceeding having been initiated against the petitioner by the authorities on charges of misconduct, they were bound to follow the procedure and the principles contained la Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, and on that account, the impugned orders were fit to be quashed.