//
you're reading...
legal issues

Service matter – Dismissed from service for unauthorized absent – refused to receive the witnesses and refused to receive Medical certificates – Single judge High court allowed the writ and set aside the dismissal order – DB bench reversed the single Judge – Apex court set aside the order of DB and held that In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate.The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.=CHHEL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41749

 Service matter – Dismissed from service for unauthorized absent – refused to receive the witnesses and refused to receive Medical certificates – Single judge High court allowed the writ and set aside the dismissal order – DB bench reversed the single Judge – Apex court  set aside the order of DB and held that  In his reply, the appellant has taken  the  plea  that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90,  which  was  beyond  his control;  he never intended to  contravene  any  of  the  provisions  of  the service regulations.  He submitted the copies of medical certificates  issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the  post.   The  medical reports were submitted after about 24 days.  There was  no  allegation  that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful  and  deliberate.The Inquiry Officer has also not held that  appellant’s  absence  from  duty was  willful  and  deliberate.  It  is  neither  case  of  the  Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by  the appellant were forged  or  fabricated  or  obtained  for  any  consideration though he was not ill during the said period.  In absence of  such  evidence and finding, it was not open to the  Inquiry  Officer  or  the  Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the  medical  certificates  issued  by  the  Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.=

The  appellant  was  working  with  the  respondent-Bank  since  17th

February, 1984 as Clerk-cum-Cashier.

While in  service  he  remained  absent

from duty from 11th December, 1989 to 24th October, 1990  (approximately  10

and  1/2  months)  without  obtaining  prior  permission  of  the  competent

authority.

For the said reason he was  served  with  a  memorandum  on  5th

October, 1991 alleging contravention of the provisions of the Marwar  Gramin

Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980, for the following charges:

He remained absent from duty from 11th December, 1989 to 24th October,  1990

without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority;

He failed to comply with the orders and directions given to him  which  were

the letters issued asking him to join duty;

He remained absent from duty without any reason.

On the day of joining he failed to submit medical certificate and  submitted

the same after much delay.=

During the inquiry 

the  appellant  submitted  list  of  seven  defence

witnesses.  However, Inquiry Officer called only two witnesses  and  refused

to call rest of the  five  witnesses  on  the  ground  that  the  presenting

officer of the Bank was ready to answer the questions on behalf of  them  as

may be raised by the appellant. After inquiry the Inquiry Officer  submitted

report dated 3rd January, 1994, rejecting the testimony of two witnesses  as

“untrustworthy” and held the appellant guilty for the charges.=

Finally, after hearing the appellant, the Disciplinary  Authority  held  the

charges to be proved and removed the appellant from service by  order  dated

17th October, 1994.=

The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 31st  March,  2009  allowed

the writ petition, quashed the order of removal and directed the  respondent

to reinstate the appellant in service with all consequential  benefits  with

following observation:

“In the instant case the reason given for not calling the  witnesses  named

by the delinquent employee is absolutely vague and irrelevant. It  does  not

and cannot appeal to the measures and standards of a quasi judicial  inquiry

that ultimately resulted  into  removal  of  the  delinquent  employee  from

service. The refusal to call defence witnesses in  the  manner  existing  in

present case is apparent denial of reasonable  opportunity  to  the  charged

employee for defending himself. A definite prejudice, therefore,  is  caused

by not calling the witnesses  named  by  the  petitioner  without  examining

their relevance and  ultimately  holding  him  guilty  for  the  charges  in

defence of which he indicated his desire to examine those witnesses.”=

But D.B. Bench Reversed the single judge =

Apex court held that

From  the  plain  reading  of  the  charges  we  find  that  the  main

allegation is absence from duty from 11.12.89 to 24.10.90 (approximately  10

and ½  months),  for  which  no  prior  permission  was  obtained  from  the

competent authority.  

In his reply, the appellant has taken  the  plea  that

he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90,  which  was  beyond  his

control; 

he never intended to  contravene  any  of  the  provisions  of  the

service regulations. 

He submitted the copies of medical certificates  issued

by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the  post.   

The  medical

reports were submitted after about 24 days.  

There was  no  allegation  that

the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful  and  deliberate.

The Inquiry Officer has also not held that  appellant’s  absence  from  duty

was  willful  and  deliberate.  

It  is  neither  case  of  the  Disciplinary

Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by  the

appellant were forged  or  fabricated  or  obtained  for  any  consideration

though he was not ill during the said period.  

In absence of  such  evidence

and finding, it was not open to the  Inquiry  Officer  or  the  Disciplinary

Authority to disbelieve the  medical  certificates  issued  by  the  Doctors

without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.

16.   In view of the  observation  made  above,  the  order  passed  by  the

Division Bench of the High Court cannot be  upheld.   

We,  accordingly,  set

aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10th May,  2012  passed  by  the

Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil  Special  Appeal  (Writ)  No.

850 of 2009 and upheld the order passed by the learned  Single  Judge  dated

31st March, 2009 in S.B. Civil Appeal Writ Petition No. 1702 of  1995.   

The

respondents are directed to implement the direction  and  order  dated  31st

March, 2009 issued by the learned Single Judge within four  weeks  from  the

date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

17.   The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.   No

costs.

2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41749

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,850,891 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com