HEM BAHADUR LIMBU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 24.1.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority, by which he has been dismissed from service and the order confirming the dismissal of the petitioner's service dated 3.7.2010, has approached this Court.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police. He proceeded on sanctioned leave from 17.6.2008 to 7.7.2008, but after lapse of sanctioned leave he did not join duty, hence he was put under suspension on 13.8.2008 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. The petitioner, thereafter, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 24.1.2009 against which he has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, but the same has also been rejected by order dated 3.7.2010. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been dismissed from service without following adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The department has reached to the conclusion without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner of being heard as the petitioner has not been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. The relevant documents have also not been supplied to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the disciplinary authority has accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of dismissal.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has submitted that the authorities have provided all opportunities of hearing, but it is the petitioner who has not availed the same and as such there was no option but to proceed with the departmental proceeding. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner has remained absent from duty without any permission, it is a gross misconduct. Hence the petitioner being a member of disciplined Force, has rightly been dismissed from service. It has further been submitted that even the appellate authority has also considered all aspects of the matter who reached to the conclusion that the petitioner has not given information to the authorities concerned when the specific ground of the petitioner was that he was suffering from jaundice, which is not such a disease that the family member of the petitioner could not give any information to the competent authority with respect to the absence of the petitioner. As such it has been submitted that the order needs no interference.