DINESH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-State.

(2.) Petitioner being employee in Press and forms, Gaya and member of workers union was proceeded against on the basis of charge memo dated 24.08.2013. Same was containing three charges. Substance of charges no. 1 and 2 was that the petitioner had remained continuous absent from 07.04.2009 till date of issuance of charge memo i.e. 24.08.2013. Third charge was alleging that as a result of his absence from duty, members of the cooperative society had indulged in misappropriation of huge amount. Enquiry officer proceeded to hold an enquiry. Petitioner participated in the enquiry before Enquiry officer. The stand of the petitioner is that on account of his being Joint secretary of Mazdoor union, he has been victimized by the authorities because he was taking up the grievance of grade IV employees within department. It is his submission that from 31.03.2010 till 23.01.2011 petitioner was under suspension. In the circumstance allegation made in the charge memo is also unsustainable since period between 31.03.2010 till 23.01.2011, being period of suspension cannot be treated as period of absence from duty. The Enquiry officer on the basis of material concluded that charge no.3 could not be proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report containing said conclusion is dated 20.11.2013. Petitioner thereafter was served with second show cause notice dated 11.03.2014 issued by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 29.03.2014. In response to second show cause notice, petitioner has submitted a detailed and elaborate reply. Petitioner has taken stand before the authority that he has been made victim on account of his activity in the union and otherwise denied all charges. He has submitted that since he was Joint secretary of the union, he was being given threat to his life and in the circumstance he had requested the authorities for transfer. The authorities had not heeded to his request and therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible for absence, if any, which was under very compelling circumstance where he was facing threat to his life.

(3.) Whether the authorities propose to accept the mitigating circumstance raised by the petitioner or not is within realm of their discretion on which this court would not make any observation. If the petitioner is able to make out mitigating circumstance surely authorities would consider the same.