Pramod Kumar Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

S.K. Mishra, J

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order (per S.K.Mishra,ACJ)

Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.P.S.Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

In this case, the appellant being the petitioner in WP(S/S) No. 1988 of 2013 has assailed the final order passed by the learned Single Judge on

25.07.2014 dismissing the writ application for quashing the order dated 07.02.2019 on the provisions of the Uttaranchal Temporary Government

Servant (Termination of Service) Rule, 2003.

The petitioner was appointed as a Forester in the Forest Department in the year 1994. As per the petitioner, he was a permanent employee.

Thereafter, he remained absent from the duties for a period of more than ten years between 2000 to 2012, but latter on, he tried to give his joining

report to the Authorities, but it was not accepted. The petitioner submitted that he did not joint duties for 10 yeas as he was suffering from

“Schizophrenia†and was being treated. However, it is taken note of by the learned Single Judge that there is noting on record to show that during

the period of the ten years any effort was made either by the petitioner or on his behalf by this family members to apprise the Department that the

petitioner was suffering from “Schizophreniaâ€. Suddenly, after ten years, the petitioner claims that he was disable due to “Schizophrenia†and

therefore, claimed that the Forest Department must give him to join.

Vide order dated, 07.02.2019, under the provisions of the Uttaranchal Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rule, 2003, the

Department terminated the services of the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge, mainly on two grounds;

I. Though he claims to be a permanent Government Employee, the use of Temporary Servants Rule will not vitiate the proceedings or his termination

as the authorities have jurisdiction to terminate his services because of his long absence from duties.

II. The second ground that has been taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ application is that the documents relied upon by the

petitioner were not annexed to the writ petition. Some medical documents were annexed to the rejoinder. Those were purported to be documents

relating to his treatment by a Doctor, who was in-charge of the Medical Officer for about 7 to 8 years by the State Allopathic Dispensary, was not

believable.

In the course of hearing in this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant failed to satisfy this Court that the appellant was not a temporary or a

probationer employee. He failed to produce any document to show that the petitioner was regularised in the service after completion of the Probation.

It is admitted that he was appointed under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on the death of his father in harness. The application of the provisions

of Uttaranchal Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rule, 2003, prima facie does not appear to be illegal. Even otherwise, as

the petitioner remained absent for more than ten years, he shall be construed to have abandoned the services. His sudden appearance before the

authorities to put in joining report can not be accepted and for that reasons, no mandamus can be issued against the respondents directing them to

accept the joining report of the petitioner.

The final aspect of the case is that the learned Single Judge has disbelieved the Medical Certificate produced before it on the ground that has been

stated by him in the impugned judgement.

It addition to that, we find that the petitioner at the first instance did not file any xe-rox copy of the documents in the writ application. Only after the

counter affidavit is filed, this issue is raised that he has not filed any document in support of his illness, he has filed this rejoinder affidavit annexing

certain documents issued over the period of 6 to 7 years by the same Doctor of a Dispensary, showing that who was suffering from

“Schizophrenia†and not getting any good results. In the normal circumstances, people do not go on being treated from a General Doctor who has

only the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) without taking any second opinion from experts leads this Court to believe that these

documents are not genuine documents and cannot be acted upon.

Moreover, the Medical Board referred to in this case has categorically stated that at the time of examination, they cannot give any opinion on the

previous medical condition of the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is hardly any scope of interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge

in this case. The writ application is dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.