Ambadas D. Joshi vs The Managing Director and The Secretary Common Cadre Authority

N.K. Patil, J.—Petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order passed by first Respondent dated 13th June 2002 vide Annexure C, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, Petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the first Respondent to continue the Petitioner in service as peon with all consequential benefits.

The grievance of Petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, Petitioner was appointed as Second Division Assistant under the first Respondent - Gulbarga District Central Co-operative Bank with effect from 21st December 1993. Since the date of joining, Petitioner has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. In the year 2000, when Petitioner was suffering from ill health, he remained absent from duty as the circumstances were beyond his control. Due to absence on the ground of ill-health, the first Respondent initiated departmental enquiry proceedings against the Petitioner treating his absence as unauthorized absence and passed the order dated 13th June 2002 by imposing the penalty of demoting the Petitioner from the post of ''Second Division Assistant'' to that of the post of ''peon''. Thereafter, the further case of the Petitioner is that, due to unavoidable circumstances, he has again remained absence without there being any leave at his credit. Therefore, the first Respondent on the basis that, Petitioner is a habitual and regular absentee even though there being no leave at his credit, has dismissed the Petitioner from service with effect from 13th June 2002. It is the specific case of Petitioner that, the first Respondent without conducting proper enquiry and without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, has taken a decision in its meeting held on 26th February 2001 to terminate the services of Petitioner vide Annexure C. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by first Respondent, Petitioner has presented the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

After careful perusal of the order impugned vide Annexure C dated 13th June 2002, what emerges is that, there is no enquiry as such conducted by the competent authority nor any valid reasons assigned for terminating the services of the Petitioner. Except referring that, Petitioner has remained absent without obtaining the leave and even when there was no leave at his credit, no cogent reasons are assigned. A notice has been issued to Petitioner stating that, if Petitioner does not report to duty, his services would be terminated. It is the stand of the Respondents that, when Petitioner did not reply within seven days, there was no other option but to place the matter before the Committee of the first Respondent for approval and the same was approved and a decision was taken to terminate the services of Petitioner. The punishment of termination of service imposed against the Petitioner appears to be too harsh in nature and that Petitioner should have been imposed with just and reasonable punishment and commensurate with the offence committed by him, i.e. for being a habitual absentee. Therefore, I am of the view that, the impugned order passed by the first Respondent is not a speaking order as no valid reasons are assigned. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence, it is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to reconsidered afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, keeping in view that, it is a case of life and death of the employee and his dependents and to take sympathetic view, applying social justice and also taking into consideration the hardship caused to the dependents of the Petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked and not considered by the first Respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the impugned order passed by first Respondent cannot sustained.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by Petitioner is disposed of as follows:

I] The writ petition filed by Petitioner is allowed in part:

II] The impugned order dated 13th June 2002 bearing No. JDCCB: AMCU:2000-01 passed by the first Respondent vide Annexure C, is hereby set aside;

III] The matter stands remitted back to first Respondent for reconsideration afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, and to a sympathetic view of the matter keeping in mind the hardship caused to Petitioner and his dependents and dispose of the same, after affording reasonable opportunity to Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.