Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 349 (JHR)

Bhuwaneshwar Mandal v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-04-01

TAPEN SEN

body2004
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned S.C. II for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner prays for salary, for the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000. 3. Annexure 1 is the order of suspension and is indicative of the fact that the petitioner along with others were put under suspension for not having joined their transferred place inspite of having been relieved. The order of suspension categorically says that they would continue to be under suspension with effect from 17.12.1999 till the date they proceed to join on their transferred place. According to the petitioner, he joined on 27.03.2000. The order of suspension was revoked by order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police holding that the period from 01.10.1999 to 29.02.2000 being a period of unauthorized absence, should be decided as to whether the same would be treated as such or not. It is perhaps in this context that the petitioner has not been paid any salary for the aforementioned period because no decision has yet been taken as to whether the aforesaid period is to be regularized or not. 4. It is true that the conduct of the petitioner was not befitting the status of an employee of a disciplined force, but at the same time the respondent No. 4 should have taken a decision in relation to the aforementioned period within the shortest possible period of time so that the petitioner should not have been forced to come to this Court. 5. At the same time, this Court does not find the conduct of the petitioner to be a case of gross dereliction of duty. However, since the matter relating to regularizing of this period has till not been decided by the appropriate authority, this Court directs the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi to take a decision in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is disposed off. There shall however be no order as to costs. 7. After the aforementioned order was passed, Mr. 6. The writ application is disposed off. There shall however be no order as to costs. 7. After the aforementioned order was passed, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the reason which prevented the petitioner from joining in time was a valid reason inasmuch as the wife of the petitioner was seriously ill. If this be factually correct, the respondent authority shall also consider the same sympathetically.