Although v. Mithilesh Singh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Writ petition is dismissed
Judgment
Although the petitioner has not enclosed to the writ petition the copy of the ch arge sheet, but it appears that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from 20.1 2.2000 to 23.12.2001 and thereafter again with effect from 24.12.2001. The impug ned order of discharge dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure-3) speaks of the same. Pursuan t to the order passed discharging the petitioner from service, he made Annexure- 4, 5 and 6 representations dated 27.7.2004, 12.8.2005 and 7.1.2007 praying for p ayment of pensionery benefit. In the said representations it was stated that he could not join duties as he was suffering from illness. As regards the departmen tal proceeding, it is not the case of the petitioner that same was conducted wit hout serving him any notice. In fact, the petitioner himself has annexed to the writ petition Annexure-1 notice dated 6.3.2003, by which he was directed to subm it his written statement.
The petitioner did not respond to the notice issued to him, which naturally resu lted in ex-parte proceeding against him and he was discharged from service. As noticed above, the petitioner has not challenged the departmental proceeding initiated against him and the order of discharge dated 15.3.2003. However, he ha s prayed for payment of pensionery benefit to him. If the petitioner was dischar ged from service, there is no question of payment of pensionary benefits to him as the order of discharge by way of removal and/or dismissal from service entail s forfeiture of service rendered by a delinquent. As has been held by this Court in Union of India Vs. Mithilesh Singh, reported i n 2000 (3) GLT 62 unauthorized absence by a member of the disciplined force may entail dismissal from service. That decision of the Divisional Bench of this Cou rt has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Mithilesh Singh Vs.
Operative part
Union of India rep orted in (2003) 3 SCC 309. The Apex Court has observed that unauthorized absence from duty by members of disciplined force is a serious misconduct and no fault can be attributed to the employer in respect of imposition of penalty of removal /dismissal from service. As in the instant case, in the said case also Sri Mithilesh Singh was unauthoris edly absent for duty and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Th e said order dismissal from service was upheld by the Division Bench of this cou rt. Challenging the said order, Sri Singh had approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court while dismissing the appeal upheld the Division Bench judgment. Above apart, the petitioner has not put to challenge the order of discharge. The re is also no explanation as to the cause of delay in filing the writ petition, which is long 8 years. For all the aforesaid reasons, no direction can be issued to the respondents to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner. However, irrespective of dismissal of the writ petition, the respondents may consider payment of any dues found payab le to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.