Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of State of Odisha & Ors. Versus Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, The State of Odisha, the Director General & Inspector General of Police and others in the police department have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 2.5.2018 in Writ Petition (C)No.7053/2011. In the impugned judgment, the High Court of Orissa has substituted the punishment of discharge for the respondent, to compulsory retirement and to this extent modified the order dated 2.12.2010 whereunder, the Orissa Administrative Tribunal 1 had dismissed the O.A.No.1459(C)/2003 filed by the discharged Orderly. In this case When the respondent applied for leave extension, on 12.6.1991 (Annexure P1), the Commandant directed the respondent to appear before the CDMO, Cuttack for medical examination/treatment and the likely period needed for treatment, was to be intimated to the Commandant.
When the respondent failed to appear for the medical test, a second communication was issued on 22.10.1991 in the same line But since the respondent did not heed those communications and his whereabouts were not intimated even after months of leave expiry, the respondent was sternly directed on 13.3.1992 to have his medical examination done by the CDMO, Cuttack within 7 days of receipt of the letter, to establish the genuineness of his sickness plea or else, Following the failure of the respondent to have himself medically examined and resume his duties, the departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the charge memo (26.10.1992) and other relevant documents were duly served upon the respondent, at his native place. The respondent, however, did not submit any explanation and thereafter he refused to accept the notice and the depositions that were sent to him. he will face departmental action for unauthorized leave overstay. Because of the nonparticipation of the delinquent, the proceeding had to be conducted ex parte and the inquiry officer found the respondent guilty of the charge.
A decade after the discharge order and three years following the rejection of the grievance petition, the respondent approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal with O.A. No.1459 (C)/2003 to challenge the disciplinary action. The Tribunal noted the relevant facts and while adverting to the above medical certificate the Tribunal noticed that the certifying Doctor has not specifically mentioned that for the period covered by his certificate (3.6.1991 - 21.1.1998), the respondent was under his treatment. Proceeding with such perception, the punishment was found to be excessive and accordingly the High Court substituted the penalty of discharge with compulsory retirement.
The case subsequently reached the Supreme Court, the court after hearing the matter held “In the above circumstances, the High Court should not have granted relief to the respondent solely on the basis of the medical certificate of the specialist Doctor who may not have personally treated the patient. In the absence of relevant and contemporaneous medical records, the High Court should not have interfered with the disciplinary action and ordered for a lesser penalty. The gravity of the misconduct of the respondent was overlooked and unmerited intervention was made with the Tribunal’s rightful decision to decline relief in the O.A.1459(C)/2003 filed by the respondent. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and allow the appeal. There shall be no order as to cost.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824