Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 119 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Rana Shamsher Singh

2015-01-17

RAKESH TIWARI, VIJAY LAKSHMI

body2015
JUDGMENT . Rakesh Tiwari and Vijay Lakshmi, JJ. 1. There is delay of 78 days in filing the present appeal. After hearing the submissions and going through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, in our view, the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed. State of U.P. has preferred this intra Court appeal against judgment and order dated 2.9.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 45937/2014, Rana Shamsher Singh v. State and others. 2. We have heard Sri H.M. Srivastava appearing for the appellant-State and perused the record. 3. Facts relevant to this appeal are that Rana Shamsher Singh, a sub inspector in P.A.C. remained absent from duty w.e.f. 21.2.2013 to 21.7.2013, for he was admitted in a hospital for operation of kidney and he informed the authorities in that regard. After his joining the duty, an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that he was undergoing aforesaid treatment but he absented himself without prior permission, hence after show cause notice and its reply by him, leave without pay was sanctioned and punishment of censure was imposed on him. Appeal preferred against the said order having been rejected, he filed the aforesaid writ petition. The writ Court while disposing of the writ petition, has directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter regarding denial of pay for the period of absence and take a fresh decision in the matter within three months, against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned standing Counsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent-Sub-Inspector, did not seek prior permission before availing medical leave, therefore, the authority has rightly passed the orders for leave without pay applying the principle of 'No work no pay' and censure entry. 5. From record it is apparent that it is not that respondent-Sub-Inspector had not informed the authorities about his treatment. He did inform the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli about his medical treatment but objection of the State-appellant is that since he had been transferred during the period of absence, he should have submitted application at PAC Headquarter and not S.P. Chandauli where he was earlier posted. Approach of the appellant appears to be inhuman. He did inform the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli about his medical treatment but objection of the State-appellant is that since he had been transferred during the period of absence, he should have submitted application at PAC Headquarter and not S.P. Chandauli where he was earlier posted. Approach of the appellant appears to be inhuman. Order of his transfer was made during the period of absence i.e., while undergoing treatment, so even if application for leave was made by him to the S.P. Chandauli where he was earlier posted, his leave application could have been forwarded by the S.P. to the appropriate authority. Further, during departmental enquiry, when it has been found that during the period of absence he was undergoing medical treatment relating to his kidney, it cannot be said to be a case of absence without justifiable cause. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ Court has rightly come to the conclusion that merely because he did not seek prior permission or that he submitted applications in the office where he was earlier posted, may be a good ground for imposing some minor punishment but the same cannot be a ground for denial of pay for the period of absence particularly when punishment of censure has already been imposed. In our view, instead of leave without pay, medical leave should have been granted to the respondent-Sub-Inspector. 6. Moreover, the Writ Court has recorded that from perusal of the impugned order dated 24.2.2014 it is apparent that the order is cryptic one and bereft of any consideration of the reply submitted as well as the recitals contained in the inquiry report. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, since the principle of 'No work no pay' would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case, we quash the order dated 24.2.2014 sanctioning leave without pay as well as order dated 23.5.2014 of the appellate authority appended as Annexure No. 14 and 15 respectively to the writ petition. The respondent shall be treated on medical leave for the aforesaid period of absence and shall be paid salary and medical reimbursement within a period of two months. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of. The judgment and order passed by the writ Court regarding reconsideration of matter by appellate authority stands modified to the above extent. No order as to costs.