Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 342 (UTT)

M. L. Gautam v. State of Uttaranchal

2004-12-02

R.D.SHUKLA, R.M.BAPAT

body2004
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. R. D. Shukla, Chairman : The claim petition has been filed for quashing the revisional order dated 3.7.2002 as well as appellate order dated 26.6.2002 along with punishment order dated 28.1.2000 awarding 243 days of petitioner's absence from duty as leave without pay. The petitioner on his part prays for medical leave for this period contending that total period of absence amounts to 269 days. 2. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Virendra Sehgal and Learned Assistant Presenting Officer Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal. 3. Petitioner's case in brief had been that he was Head Constable posted at Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. In May 1998 on account of illness of his daughter, he took one day's casual leave on 13.5.1998 and went to his home town in District Meerut. The illness of his daughter was serious and he prayed for 10 days further leave. Petitioner himself feel ill and he applied for medical leave from 25.5.1998 to 25.2.1999. The contention of the petitioner is that he was transferred to some other district on 3.6.1998, regarding which he had no knowledge and so he could not join his duties before 26.2 .1999. Thus, counting from 3.6.1998 to 25.2.1999, petitioner contends that 269 days' medical leave be granted to him so he gets his salary 6f this period. It has been denied to him on account of the punishment order, directing his 243 days' absence from duty as leave without pay. It appears, petitioner was suspended during his period and an enquiry was in instituted. The departmental enquiry report add 26.7.1999 recommended petitioner's reversion to the lower pay scale for a period of one year and also for treating his absence from duty from 3.6.1998 to 26.2.1999 as leave without pay. A show cause notice was issued and the punishment order dated 28.1.2000 indicated that petitioner's explanation was not found satisfactory, he therefore, was reverted to lower pay scale for a period of one year and hi$ absence from duty for 243 days was treated as leave without pay. An appeal was preferred against this order and appellate order dated 26.6.2000 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, revision was preferred and the revisional order dated 3.7.2002 passed by I.G. Police, Dehradun indicated that the entire enquiry procedure was found defective and thus, the punishment order as well as the appellate order was quashed. An appeal was preferred against this order and appellate order dated 26.6.2000 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, revision was preferred and the revisional order dated 3.7.2002 passed by I.G. Police, Dehradun indicated that the entire enquiry procedure was found defective and thus, the punishment order as well as the appellate order was quashed. The reversion of the petitioner to lower pay scale was also quashed. However, treating petitioner's absence for 243 days as leave without pay was not disturbed and therefore, this claim petition has been filed. 4. Petitioner's main contention is that on account of illness of his daughter as well as his own illness, he remained absent from duty, though the absence was not of the nature which could be termed as service in discipilne pertaining to the police force, because the petitioner initially proceeded on leave on 13.5.1998 with the consent of the authority concerned as casual leave for one day was granted to the petitioner by the said authority. This grant of casual leave to the petitioner on 13.5.1998 is not disputed in written statement filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Para 4(1) of the claim petition asserted this grant of casual leave for one day and Para 4 of the written statement admitted this contention of Para 4(1) of the claim petition. Thus, the position of facts being what it is, absence from duty of the petitioner is not of the nature as has been made out to be in the enquiry report. Initially grant of the casual leave permitted the petitioner to go to his home town with specific purpose to attend the illness of his, daughter. On reaching his home town, petitioner found his daughter seriously ill and while medical needs were attended, petitioner himself fell ill. Rest part of the absence related to this medical need and is a matter of history of this case. There is no need to discuss these facts unnecess3Yily in this judgment as the Tribunal is not concerned with the question of facts. These facts only have been detailed to test the reasonableness of the revisional order dated 3.7.2002, which quashed the enquiry report as well as appellate order. The revisional order specifically noted that the punishment order was against rules and the appellate order was also not passed properly. It obviously means that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not necessary. 5. The revisional order specifically noted that the punishment order was against rules and the appellate order was also not passed properly. It obviously means that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not necessary. 5. The revisional order dated 3rd July, 2002 has not been disputed by the respondents as it was passed by Inspector General of Police, Dehradun. This revisional order quashed the punishment order and also the appellate order. Thus, the order treating the period of absence from duty as leave without pay has become non existent in view of this revisional order. This order in revision virtually favours the petitioner in his case and therefore, this order itself can be made a basis for determination of the claim petition filed by the petitioner. These circumstances conclude that the order treating the petitioner's absence from duty as leave without pay is not sustainable under law. 6. Looking to the facts stated, we come• to the conclusion that the appropriate authority namely Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun should reconsider the whole matter regarding the award of 243 days' leave without pay to the petitioner. If the petitioner has medical leave to his credit, then as contended in this claim petition, he can be given medical leave for the total period of his absence so that he gets his salary for the period in question. The petitioner shall serve the copy of this order on Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun within 15 days from this date and the said authority shall pass appropriate order in compliance of this order within 4 weeks from the date of service of this order. And with these directions, the claim petition is disposed of finally with no orders as to costs.