Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8782 of 2021 Petitioner :- Hariom Respondent :- Union Of India & 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Ms. Mahima Maurya Kushwaha learned counsel for the petitioner.
The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administration Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj in Original Application No.330/01414/2013.
The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the denial of the back wages for the period of absence from service. The tribunal has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the disciplinary enquiry had been held in accordance with the service rules and there was no violation of the principle of natural justice. The appellate authority, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case took a lenient view and reduced the quantum of punishment from a major punishment of termination from service to the minor punishment of withholding increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect. The Tribunal has also taken note of the Rule 11(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules which provides that absence of an official from duty without prior permission would be treated as a dies-non and benefit for the period of absence cannot be given to the employee.
The record further indicates that the petitioner had joined his duties on 13.03.2013 after the order passed by the appellate authority.
To challenge the decision of the Tribunal in denying the back wages to the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate and the revisional authority had passed the orders in mechanical manner and did not advert to the circumstances put forth by the petitioner showing that the unauthorized absent was under compelling circumstances.
The reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishnakant B. Parmar Vs Union of India & another reported in S.C.C 2012(3) to submit that while examining as to whether unauthorized absence from duty amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant, it is to be seen as to whether absence was willful or because of the compelling circumstance.
Considering the said submission, we may note that the competent disciplinary authority though had terminated the services of the petitioner but a lenient view had been taken by the appellate authority in reducing the quantum of punishment. There is no dispute that the petitioner was absent from duty without leave or prior permission of the competent authority. In the matter of grant of back wages, the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in Krishnakant B. Parmar (supra) cannot be applied.
Further, in absence of any dispute relating to the absence of the petitioner without prior permission or leave, we do not find it a fit case for grant of back wages for the period of non-working.
For the aforesaid, no good ground is found to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Himanshu Digitally signed by SUNITA AGARWAL Date: 2021.08.27 16:18:20 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by Justice Deepak Verma Date: 2021.08.27 16:18:39 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad