Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 619 (JHR)

Lalita Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2009-04-27

D.N.PATEL

body2009
JUDGMENT: 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. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that petitioner has remained absent for additional days, over and above the leave period granted by the respondents. She was absent from the duty, because of this absenteeism, service of the petitioner has brought to an end by dismissal order and, therefore, the punishment is proper with the nature of misconduct and, therefore, there is no substance in this petition. 4. She was absent from the duty, because of this absenteeism, service of the petitioner has brought to an end by dismissal order and, therefore, the punishment is proper with the nature of misconduct and, therefore, there is no substance in this petition. 4. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears: (i) that the present petitioner was serving as a constable with the respondents; (ii) that petitioner applied for leaves, which were sanctioned from 9th August, 2008 to 11th August, 2008, but, she remained absent from 7th August, 2008 to 12th August, 2008 and, therefore, she has dismissed from her services by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 30th August, 2008, which is at Annexure-6. (iii) that in past no notice has been issued by the respondents to the petitioner, no grievance has been ventilated by the respondents for her services; (iv) that she has applied for leave for the period running from 9th August, 2008 to 11th August, 2008. Thus, looking to her application and seeking permission, there is element of obedience on her part and thereafter only to go on leave, but, the fact remains that petitioner has gone on leave from 7th August, 2008 to 12th August, 2008 for additional three days also. Looking to this element of getting leave period sanction and looking to the period of absenteeism, the quantum of punishment awarded is unreasonably excessive and grossly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct. It ought to have been keeping in mind by respondent no. 2 that punishment ought to be in proposition with the nature of misconduct; it can not be unreasonably excessive. There is not a case of total absenteeism without permission, but, here is a case of enjoyment of leave after sanction and additional leave is enjoyed without permission. 5. In view of these facts and circumstances, I hereby quashed and set aside the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 30th August, 2008, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition. The termination order passed by the respondent no. 2 against the services of the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside at the same time, I direct respondent no. 2 dated 30th August, 2008, which is at Annexure-6 to the memo of the petition. The termination order passed by the respondent no. 2 against the services of the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside at the same time, I direct respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order of punishment looking to the nature of misconduct and reasons of absenteeism, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and in accordance with law. 6. I hereby also direct respondent no. 4 that his subordinates whenever imposing punishment, even though they are serving in police department should not impose such a strict order. Only three days leaves were over-enjoyed, by the petitioner, there can not be an order of termination or dismissal. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 as a head, may issue necessary circular for avoiding multifariousness of proceedings or petitions. Whenever punishment is inflicted, if it is not in proportion with the nature of misconduct, there are bound to be Court matters. For three days absenteeism, there can not be termination order. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent no. 4 will take note of the order passed by respondent no. 2. 7. I hereby direct Registry to send a copy of this order to respondent nos. 3 and 4. 8. Petition is hereby allowed.