The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that the employer is well within his right to keep an account of the past conduct of the employee while taking a decision on any service condition while dismissing the petition of a ministerial employee of the High Court.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his application for grant of leave for a period of eight days from 25.04.2019 to 02.05.2019 was rejected and the said period was treated as leave without pay. Not only once, the competent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner twice.
The respondent-employer and its functionaries have filed their return justifying the impugned orders on the ground that petitioner is a habitual absentee and that leave was sought on the ground of daughter of petitioner being injured, but facts reveal that treatment of daughter was done as an out-patient which discloses absence of any serious injury/ailment.
The employer by filing return has relied upon Rule 6 of M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977, which stipulates that no employee can claim leave as a right. It further provides that leave can be refused or revoked due to administrative exigency.
The Jabalpur Bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while considering the Petition held that the reason shown by the employer for denying leave sought by the petitioner and declaring the period to be leave without pay do not appear to be unreasonable or beyond the jurisdictional purview prescribed by relevant statutory provision.
“The Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into genuineness, veracity and sufficiency of cause shown by the employee for seeking leave, provided the refusal by the employer is based on reasons, which cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. If the reasons assigned by the employer for rejection could be assigned and merely because another reason is possible, is not a sufficient ground to exercise the power of judicial review,”
-observed the Bench.
In the judgment, the Bench said the reason assigned by the employer herein is that the daughter of petitioner was treated as an out-patient and not as an in-patient by the hospital and, therefore, presumption arises that injury sustained was not serious enough, is a reason which a man of ordinary prudence would not categories as absurd or irrational or a reason which cannot in the given facts and circumstances be assigned.
Also Read: Allahabad HC directs ED from taking any coercive action against former UP minister Rangnath Mishra
“Other reasons assigned by the employer of the petitioner being a habitual absentee and in the habit of taking leave frequently also cannot be termed as arbitrary. The employer is well within its right to keep account of the past conduct of the employee while taking a decision on any of the service conditions,”
-the order reads.
In view of the above discussion, the Court does not find sufficient ground to exercise its power of judicial review in favour of the petitioner and accordingly dismisses the petition.