1. This petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by respondent no.2 dated 11.10.2011 whereby, the application of the petitioner seeking regularization of his services for the period of unauthorized absenteeism from 05.04.2010 to 08.12.2010 was rejected.
2. The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was serving as Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Anand, a criminal complaint vide C.R. No.I-79/2008 was registered against him before Gujarat University Police Station on 14.03.2008.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the registration of the aforesaid offence, the petitioner had given necessary leave application to the competent authority. However, he was served with communication dated 26.11.2010 informing him that the period of leave from 05.04.2010 to 30.11.2010 has been treated as unauthorized absenteeism and another communication dated 03.12.2010 informing that he has not been sanctioned leave for the said period and to report for duty within two days failing which disciplinary action would be initiated.
3.1 The petitioner reported for duty on 09.12.2010. Thereafter, on 10.12.2010, the petitioner made an application requesting the respondent-authority to sanction leave for the said period. Subsequently, reminders dated 05.03.2011 and 16.05.2011 were submitted. However, the petitioner was served with Notice dated 19.05.2011 to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him for remaining absent unauthorizedly for the above period. The petitioner replied to the said Notice by reply dated 02.06.2011. Being dissatisfied with the reply, the respondent-authority, by order at Annexure-A to the petition, directed to treat the period in question as unauthorized absenteeism. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason behind the petitioner remaining absent from duty for the period in question was to avail the legal remedy. He submitted that the petitioner was having sufficient leave to his credit and therefore, the authority ought to have sanctioned the leave. However, I do not find any substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner had not reported for duty though his applications requesting to grant him leave were rejected by the competent authority. Considering the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the authority concerned was justified in holding the period in question as unauthorized absenteeism. In fact, the view of the authority is sympathetic in the way that the said period of unauthorized absenteeism has not been treated as break-in-service.
5. In above view of the matter, the petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top