LALITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that despite the leave was sanctioned by respondent no. 2, the services of the present petitioner has been terminated only on the ground of absenteeism for six days. The said order of termination is at Annexure -6 to the memo of the petition, dated 30th August, 2008 passed by respondent no. 2.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has mainly submitted that in fact the petitioner was absent from 7th August, 2008 to 12th August, 2008. Leave was sanctioned for the period from 9th August, 2008 to 11th August, 2008. Thus, for three days, leave was already sanctioned, petitioner remained absent from 7th August, 2008 to 12th August, 2008. Petitioner is serving as a constable with the respondents. Service record of the present petitioner is spotless, never any notice has been given in past, petitioner is serving faithfully, diligently, sincerely and efficiently. Never, any grievance has been ventilated by the respondents about the service rendered by the petitioners. Looking to the order passed at Annexure -6, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that unreasonably excessive punishment of the dismissal of the petitioner, has been imposed merely because the petitioner was absent from 7th August, 2008 to 12th August, 2008 and especially when the leave was already sanctioned from 9th August, 2008 to 11th August, 2008. Punishment ought to be proportionate with the nature of misconduct. Highest punishment has been awarded to the present petitioner without appreciating the aforesaid leave sanctioned by the respondents.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: