Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 338 (JHR)

Ram Ratan Manjhi v. Central Coalfields Ltd.

2016-02-15

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : In this application, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 29.03.1995 whereby and whereunder the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. Further prayers have made for a direction to the appellate authority to make available to the petitioner the order of rejection passed by it on 15.02.1999 as also for quashing the letter dated 29.05.2014 by which the petitioner was informed that his mercy appeal has been dismissed. 2. Shorn of details the facts emanating from the pleadings made in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed as a piece rated worker and was posted at Kargali, UG Project. The petitioner was not attending his duties which resulted in issuance of charge-sheet dated 02.12.1994 wherein the petitioner was asked to explain his unauthorized absence from duty since 21.07.1994. An enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted and ultimately vide office order dated 29.03.1995 the services of the petitioner was terminated. An appeal followed which was also rejected and the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner resulted in similar rejection. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 29.03.1995 the petitioner has preferred the present writ application. 4. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-C.C.L. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the period which was treated as unauthorized absence leading to termination of the service of the petitioner, the petitioner was undergoing treatment by a Neuro-psychiatrist at Ranchi and it was not humanely possible having such a state of mind to report for duty and to reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the respondents. It has further been submitted that the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and there being a valid reason for absence the decision taken in the office order dated 29.03.1995 is harsh and should be watered down. 6. At this, Mr. It has further been submitted that the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him and there being a valid reason for absence the decision taken in the office order dated 29.03.1995 is harsh and should be watered down. 6. At this, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-C.C.L., has submitted that even though the petitioner was aware of the initiation of a departmental proceeding but he had never informed the disciplinary authority about the treatment being undergone by him and when inspite of repeated opportunities the petitioner did not turn up the departmental proceedings was held ex parte and the enquiry Officer had submitted his report to the effect that the charge of unauthorized absence from duty has duly been proved. 7. Submission has been advanced that much after the order of termination was issued the petitioner on 09.01.1998 had represented the authorities bringing to the notice by way of medical certificates that he was under treatment at Ranchi Manshik Arogyasala, Kanke. It has been submitted that there has been deliberate laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner preferring appeal and approaching this Court for ventilation of his grievance and such action/inaction on the part of the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner was terminated vide office order dated 29.03.1995 and as per the version of the respondents the petitioner had represented the authorities on 09.01.1998 making assertions with respect to the treatment he had undergone. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner could come to know of his termination in the year 1998 but even then he had kept silent even after dismissal of his appeal on 15.02.1999. The petitioner it seems in order to cover the delay and laches on his part had filed a mercy appeal on 11.10.2013 and has, thereafter, approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. It would thus appear that the writ application preferred by the petitioner in the year 2015 relates back to an order of termination issued twenty years back. The petitioner it seems in order to cover the delay and laches on his part had filed a mercy appeal on 11.10.2013 and has, thereafter, approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. It would thus appear that the writ application preferred by the petitioner in the year 2015 relates back to an order of termination issued twenty years back. The petitioner has further tried to subtract the delay by submitting that he was not having the necessary documents in order to challenge the order of termination and only on receiving the documents he had preferred the writ application which seems to be another ruse used by the petitioner to explain the delay. The mercy appeal as well as the application for necessary documents were all filed in the year 2014 which does not explain the intervening period when his appeal was dismissed and the preferring of the mercy appeal. 9. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner apparently points towards grave laches on his part resulting in a huge delay in challenging the order of termination. The writ application at the instance of the petitioner at such a belated stage does not deserve to be entertained. Apart from what has been discussed above the petitioner it seems had been served with the memo constituting the departmental enquiry which was also duly received by the petitioner and inspite of service of enquiry notices, the petitioner never turned up and such circumstances further substantiates the apparent lackadaisical approach of the petitioner. 10. As cumulative result of discussions made hereinabove, this writ application deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches and accordingly, the same having no merit is, hereby, dismissed.