Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1245 (JHR)

Kasmir Singh v. Central Coalfields Limited

2017-07-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – The petitioner is aggrieved of penalty order dated 15.03.2015 and the appellate order dated 02.02.2016. 2. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as General Mazdoor Category-I on 04.04.1989 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Mechanical Fitter. He asserts that since 2002 he was suffering from mental illness, for which he was admitted at Central Institute of Psychiatry (CIP), Kanke, Ranchi. It is pleaded that in 2010 he went missing and his family members informed the local police by lodging a Sanha on 20.01.2010 and on 22.01.2010 his son wrote to the Project Officer, Sial-D colliery under M/s Central Coalfields Limited. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated, in which he was inflicted a penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 15.03.2015. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the department was duly informed about the petitioner''s abscondance and in the departmental proceeding neither a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor a show-cause notice was given to him, and in an ex-parte proceeding an order of dismissal from service has been passed which is liable to be interfered with. 4. Ms. Pooja Kumari, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, referring to the stand of the respondents taken in the counter-affidavit submits that several notices were issued to the petitioner at his home address still, no response was received by the department, constrained, the departmental proceeding was continued and on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty an order for dismissal from service was passed. 5. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have pleaded that a charge-memo dated 23.07.2013 on the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty from 19.12.2009 was issued, to which no reply was submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, reminders dated 28.09.2013, 18.11.2013 and 25.12.2013 were issued to the petitioner still, the petitioner did not respond to the same. Accordingly, an enquiry committee was constituted vide memo dated 01.02.2014 and the enquiry officer issued several notices vide Enquiry Notice dated 03.03.2014, 15.04.2014 and 03.05.2014 fixing the dates for enquiry, however, the petitioner did not appear. Copy of these notices have been produced on record. These notices were sent at the home address of the petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry committee was constituted vide memo dated 01.02.2014 and the enquiry officer issued several notices vide Enquiry Notice dated 03.03.2014, 15.04.2014 and 03.05.2014 fixing the dates for enquiry, however, the petitioner did not appear. Copy of these notices have been produced on record. These notices were sent at the home address of the petitioner. In view of these notices, the plea taken by the petitioner that his son had informed the department about his treatment by letter dated 30.08.2014 appears to be false. In the appeal dated 09.04.2015 (Annexure-4), the petitioner has not pleaded that he was treated at Ranchi, after he did not report for duty. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not asserted the place where he was taking treatment nor any medical prescription of any doctor or a hospital has been produced by the petitioner. The date on which he allegedly became sound has not been disclosed by him and the aforesaid enquiries/notices were never responded by his family members. 6. In the above facts, no exception can be taken to the departmental proceeding which proceeded in the absence of the petitioner and consequently, there cannot be any interference with the penalty order dated 15.03.2015 and the appellate order dated 02.02.2016. 7. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed.