KAUSHAL KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the service career of the petitioner shows several instances of absence for which punishment had been imposed upon him. The petitioner was in the habit of absenting on regular basis without any justified cause. In the instant occasion also he remained absent without moving any application. A departmental proceeding was conducted against him in which evidences were adduced and the petitioner was given chance to participate and produce his own defence as well. The inquiry officer has held him guilty as charges have been established against him as he has failed to prefer any application for seeking leave during the period in question. Upon consideration of the enquiry report, therefore, he has been imposed punishment which has also been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent-State however, does not dispute that the charge-sheet at Annexure-4 did not refer to any previous misconduct of the petitioner. On the other hand, Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during the service period of the petitioner, he had been awarded 45 times and at the same time imposed with eight minor penalties. However, it is submitted that the impugned order of punishment should not be sustained as it is not in nature of misconduct of unauthorized absence in a deliberate manner.