HC: No need for notice to staff on unauthorised long leave

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 2

In a significant judgment that may change the way employees on long unauthorised leave are treated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that notice or inquiry is not required to proceed against them.

“In case of long unauthorised absence from duty, a reasonable presumption can be that an employee is not interested in job and for passing order, no notice or inquiry is required,” Justice Daya Chaudhary has ruled.

The ruling came on a petition by Tejinder Kaur for setting aside order dated September 21, 2012, whereby her request for a premature retirement was rejected. Directions were also sought for setting aside the impugned order of dismissal from service dated March 5, 2013.

The petitioner was appointed science mistress (non-medical) in February, 1992. Her counsel submitted that the petitioner applied for leave from February 2, 2010, to February 1, 2013. Her application was duly forwarded by the headmaster to the District Education Officer, but she was not intimated.

The counsel also submitted that the petitioner was under the impression that her leave had been sanctioned. Otherwise, there was no ground to remain absent from duty. He also submitted the petitioner’s request was neither accepted nor rejected before the expiry of three-year period.

Her claim for voluntary retirement was wrongly rejected as she was having qualifying service of 10 years and was entitled to proportionate pension by considering the total length of service. The dismissal order without intimation and affording an opportunity of hearing was wrongly passed, the counsel added.

Justice Chaudhary asserted that the petitioner applied for leave for three years, but it was not sanctioned. She remained on an unauthorised leave till request for voluntary retirement was made in May 2011.

In the dismissal from service order, it was mentioned that the petitioner had remained absent for a long period and had abandoned the department.

A public notice was also published in a daily newspaper. The period of 30 days was given to explain absence. But she neither appeared nor forwarded a written request.

“Not only unauthorised absence from duty was there, the petitioner also left the country without seeking permission and that too at the cost of interest of the children. The unauthorised absence from duty for such a long period amounts to a presumption that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing her job and has abandoned it and as such the action of the respondent is justified… The petitioner has also challenged the impugned orders after a long delay, which has not been explained,” Justice Chaudhary added while dismissing the plea.