Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Gauhati Absence from duty without proper intimation is a grave offence warrants removal from service MANU/GH/0171/2022 - (22 Mar 2022) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Birendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Assam and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The petitioner's case is that he was dismissed from service vide impugned Order issued by the Commandant, 4th Assam Police Battalion, for unauthorized absence w.e.f. 27.04.2011 and has prayed for setting aside the said impugned order. 
In the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of India, the Apex Court has held that absence from duty without proper intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service, which is statutory prescribed. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. The only reason given by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence was that he was mentally ill. Assuming that the petitioner was mentally ill, there must have been some intimation made by the petitioner himself or his relatives with regard to the alleged illness. 
It is also an admitted fact that no application for leave was made by the petitioner, his mother, his wife, or any of his friends or relatives stating that the petitioner was mentally ill. The facts of the present case also show that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. However, the said issue was not a part of the memo of charge furnished against the petitioner. 
As unauthorized absence is a misconduct and though notices and the enquiry report were sent to the petitioner in the address given in his service book, there was no response from the petitioner. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded as per procedure and the petitioner was thereafter dismissed from service. 
There has been no procedural irregularities in conducting the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner and the subsequent order of dismissal. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal. Petition dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Departmental Proceeding, Dismissal, Legality</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>