Jharkhand High CourtChandan Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2022Author:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyBench:Anubha Rawat ChoudharyIN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n\n                                W.P.(S) No. 4633 of 2015\n\n            Chandan Kumar Dubey, S/o Sh. Pulast Dubey, of village Banpurwa,\n            P.O. Tildang, P.S. Garwha, District- Garwha (Jharkhand)\n                                                        ...      ...     Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n            1. The State of Jharkhand\n            2. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Sashastra Seema\n               Bal, Office of the Commandant, 13th Battalion SSB, Piprakothi,\n               Dist. East Champaran (Bihar)\n                                                  ...        ...       Respondents\n                                     ---CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY---For the Petitioner       : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate\n            For the Respondents      : Ms. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate---14/06.07.2022          Heard Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the\n                petitioner.2.     Heard Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel appearing on behalf\n                of the respondents.3.     This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:"(A) For direction upon the concerned authority for withdrawing\n                     and quashing and to set aside the show cause notice and the\n                     letter dated 03.06.2014 and letter of dismissal dated 03.02.2015\n                     whereby and whereunder the petitioner in the present case has\n                     been dismissed from his employment.(B) For direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to\n                     continue with his course of employment.(c) For any other appropriate relief(s), for which the petitioner\n                     may be found entitled in law and equality."4.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of\n                dismissal of the petitioner which is dated 03.02.2015 as well as the\n                appellate order dated 08.06.2015 are under challenge in the present\n                proceedings. He submits that initially in the writ petition, the order of\n                dismissal dated 03.02.2015 was challenged, but subsequently I.A. No.\n                2827 of 2018 was filed challenging the appellate order and the said\n                interlocutory application was allowed to be part of the writ petition.5.     The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the merits of the case,\n                has submitted that the petitioner was working as Constable (GD) since\n                05.06.2013. The petitioner proceeded on 7 days' casual leave with\n                effect from 16.01.2014 to 23.01.2014 and did not resume duty.\n                Consequently, enquiry was ordered against the petitioner vide order2dated 01.03.2014. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on\n12.03.2014 and the petitioner was declared 'Deserter' vide order dated\n16.05.2014. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner remained\nabsent from duty and did not join after expiry of his leave period on\naccount of the fact that the petitioner had to take his mother for\ntreatment to CMC Vellore and the petitioner also suffered from\nTuberculosis and Jaundice and was undergoing treatment at various\nplaces.6.     The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since\nthe petitioner was moving from one place to another, he was unaware\nabout the various notices and the steps taken by the respondent no. 2\nand ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from the employment by\nthe respondent no. 2.7.     The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the\ndocuments regarding treatment of his mother have been filed in the\npresent case and he has also filed document regarding his treatment.\nHe has referred to the annexures to the writ petition. He submits that\nconsidering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order of\ndismissal against the petitioner is uncalled for and the same is fit to be\nset-aside by this Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner\nhad also filed appeal, but the appellate authority has also not taken\ninto consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and passed\nthe impugned order and accordingly, the appellate order is also\nperverse and is fit to be set-aside.8.     The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that\nalthough no document of the year 2014 with regard to treatment of the\nmother of the petitioner has been filed in the writ petition, but in the\nsupplementary-affidavit, the petitioner has filed appointment slip\ndated 28.01.2014 which was follow-up of the treatment of his mother\nas the document regarding treatment of his mother of the year 2011\nhas been placed on record in the writ petition itself.9.     The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has\nvehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted\nthat a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case. He\nsubmits that in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the past\nrecord of the petitioner was also not good. He has also submitted that3due procedure has been followed with regard to unauthorized absence\nof the petitioner and there is no illegality or perversity in the\nimpugned orders passed by the respondents and therefore, the\nimpugned orders do not call for any interference.10.    After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and\nconsidering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds\nthat it is not in dispute that the petitioner was recruited as Constable\n(GD to 13th Battalion, SSB Piprakothi and his training started from\n01.07.2013. The records of the case also show that on 10.11.2013, the\npetitioner, without any valid reason, left the training center and\nmissing report to that effect was also lodged. Ultimately, he reported\nat 13th Battalion on 11.01.2014. Consequently, his misconduct case\nwas disposed of by the competent authority in summary trial on\n13.01.2014 and his 59 days' absence was regularized with an advice\nnot to repeat the same in future vide order dated 15.01.2014.\nThereafter, the petitioner proceeded for 7 days' Casual Leave from\n16.01.2014 and upon expiry of the leave period, the petitioner did not\nresume his duty. Repeated notices were given to the petitioner to\nresume his duty and ultimately, when the petitioner neither resumed\nhis duty nor gave any information, the enquiry was ordered vide order\ndated 01.03.2014. The enquiry officer submitted a report on\n12.03.2014. After following due procedure, the petitioner was\ndeclared 'Deserter' vide order dated 16.05.2014. The records of the\ncase show that a further show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner\nthrough special messenger dated 07.06.2014 with a direction to\nresume duty and failing which, he would be dismissed from service,\nbut in spite of service of such notice, the petitioner did not join.11.    Ultimately, a 2nd show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner\nto his home address vide letter dated 03.07.2014 and was also\npublished in the news-paper on 10.07.2014. After publication in the\nnews-paper, an application dated 15.07.2014 was received from the\npetitioner on 23.07.2014 stating that he could not join duty due to his\nmother's treatment at Vellore and he himself was suffering from T.B,\nbut along with such application, the petitioner did not submit any\nmedical document regarding his treatment or medical rest.412.   Thereafter, a special messenger was sent to the native place of\nthe petitioner to collect valid medical documents pertaining to the\ntreatment. In response to that, the petitioner filed application dated\n02.10.2014 and sought one month's time, but again he did not submit\nany document.13.   Repeated steps were taken for verification of the correctness of\nthe   claim of the petitioner and the petitioner was given last\nopportunity vide letter dated 08.01.2015 with a direction to report at\n13th Battalion within 05(five) days from the receipt of that memo,\nwhich was acknowledged by his father, but in spite of that, the\npetitioner ultimately did not join his duty. Consequently, the petitioner\nwas dismissed from service vide order dated 03.02.2015. Thereafter,\nthe petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate\nauthority also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.14.   This Court finds that the required procedure in connection with\nthe absence of the petitioner from duty was duly followed by the\nrespondents and the petitioner neither submitted the required\ndocuments in connection with the illness of his mother or his illness.\nThe petitioner was also declared deserter and the special messengers\nwhich were sent for verification regarding the ill health, did not result\nin any finding in favour of the petitioner, rather during the\nproceedings before the authority, the petitioner did not submit the\nrequired documents to substantiate his case regarding his illness/\nillness of his mother and ultimately, the order of punishment was\npassed against the petitioner on 03.02.2015.15.   This Court has gone through the order of punishment of\ndismissal which is a well-reasoned order giving the entire sequence of\nthe events. The appeal filed against the order of dismissal was also\nrejected by narrating the sequence of events and ultimately holding as\nfollows:"And whereas, second Show Cause Notice was also served to\n      individual's home address through special messenger vide letter\n      No. 10264-72 dated 03/07/2014 to resume on duty within 15\n      days with proposed punishment of dismissal from service in\n      case of failure, but he failed to assume on duties. Show Cause\n      Notice dated 03/07/2014 was also published on 10th July, 2014\n      in local news paper i.e. Dainik Jagran (Plamu Jagran) at Page5No. 8 with the direction to resume his duties within 15 days of\n               that notice but he failed to assume on duties.And whereas, an application dated 22/07/2014 received\n               from the individual by the Commandant, 13th Bn, SSB,\n               Piprakothi in which he stated that he could not join duty due to\n               mother's treatment at CMC Vellor and he also suffering from\n               T.B. since 3 months and 2 months more period required to\n               recover his health, but he had not submitted any supporting\n               medical documents pertaining to his treatment or medical rest.And whereas, a special messenger was sent to his native\n               place to collect the valid medical documents pertaining to his\n               treatment as he stated in his application dated 22/07/2014. But\n               he again submitted another application dated 02/10/2014\n               through the special messenger in which he had sought one\n               month more time but could not submitted any documents\n               pertaining to his previous/current treatment."16.   This Court has gone through the impugned orders. The\n         petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity as\n         such in the impugned orders or proceedings calling for any\n         interference underArticle 226of the constitution of India . The\n         petitioner did not submit the required medical documents regarding\n         treatment of himself/his mother before the authorities and remained\n         absent from duty from 23.01.2014 to 02.02.2015 i.e. for more than one\n         year i.e. 376 days.17.   In view of the aforesaid facts, there being no illegality or\n         perversity in the impugned orders, this Court finds no reason to\n         interfere in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this writ petition is\n         dismissed.18.   Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)\nPankaj