Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23209 of 2018 Petitioner :- Gulab Singh @ Pushpendra Respondent :- Principal Secretary Department Of Medical And Health And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Mishra,Rakesh Kuamr Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition impugns an order dated 14 June 2018, in terms of which the contractual engagement of the petitioner has been brought to an end on the ground that he remained unauthorisedly absent between 15 December 2017 to 23 March 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that he was wrongly arraigned in a criminal case in which it was alleged that he had caused the wrongful death of his wife and charged for the commission of offences under Section 306, 201 IPC. In this particular case the petitioner was also imprisoned and ultimately enlarged on bail pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 14 March 2018. Referring to clause-20 of the contract, learned counsel states that the precondition for invocation of this clause is the absence of the employee from duty without any special or adequate reasons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner all that Nodal Officer has done is exercise his power and invoke this clause on the ground of absence of the petitioner without evaluating whether there existed justifiable cause for his absence.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that on a plain reading of the order impugned, it is evident that this aspect has neither been considered nor gone into by the Nodal Officer and consequently the ends of justice would merit the matter being remanded to the said authority for decision afresh.
Accordingly with the consent of parties, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 14 June 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The sixth respondent shall proceed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and it would be open to him to also evaluate whether the incarceration of the petitioner would constitute a special or justifiable reason for absence. All contentions on merits in this respect are left open. The sixth respondent shall endeavour to conclude the decision making process within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition and its enclosures.
It is further clarified that the setting aside of the impugned order shall not constitute a ground for the revival of the contract of the petitioner which shall abide by the fresh decision which the sixth respondent shall now take.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 faraz