S K CHAKRABARTY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Spinning master with the respondent No. 2 and 3, was served with the articles of charges vide memorandum dated April 13, 1994. THE first charge related to absence from duty from February 26, 1994 to March 3, 1994 without permission and second was with regard to lack of devotion towards duty and to spoil the working environment of the Mill by instigating the staff members. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was dismissed form service vide order dated January 18/24, 1995. THE petitioner in the instant writ petition has impugned the aforesaid charge sheet and the orders and sought all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE first ground of challenge is that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner as defined under clause (5) of Rule 16. 33 of the Rajasthan State Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Employees Service Rules 1994 (for short 1994 rules ).

(3.) CLAUSE (5) of Rule 16. 33 of 1994 Rules provides that absenting from work for seven days or more without intimation or proper sanction or permissions or notice in writing or without sufficient reason shall be deemed to constitute misconduct on the part of the employee. Therefore the question that requires consideration is whether the petitioner was absent from work for seven days or more without proper sanction and thus committed misconduct. A look at charge No. 1 demonstrates that the petitioner had absented himself from work from Feb. 26, 1994 till March 3, 1994 without prior permission. A telegram was however sent by the petitioner seeking extension of leave with effect from Feb. 28, 1994 but the petitioner was directed to immediately join the duties and thereafter on March 5, 1994 the petitioner joined his duties. The petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition pleaded that the was directed on telephone to attend Sales Meeting at Jaipur on March 4, 1994 hence he joined duties on March 5, 1994 after attending Sales Meeting on March 4, 1994. The respondents in their reply to para 9 did not deny this fact. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner absented himself from Feb. 24, 1994 to March 4, 1994 appears to be incorrect and against the Memorandum of Charges Ex. 4. A perusal of calendar of February and March 1994 goes to show that Feb. 27, 1994 being sunday was holiday and the petitioner has absented himself only for five days i. e. on Feb. 26, 28, March 1, 2 and 3. Even if Sunday is included then also the days come to six only and clause (5) of Rule 16. 33 is not attracted. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not appreciate the provisions contained in clause (5) of Rule 16. 33 in right perspective. I therefore hold that the respondents have failed to prove that the petitioner was guilty of any misconduct and issuance of charge sheet in regard to charge No. 1 was not proper.