Court says Employee’s Absence from Duty citing transfer complaint is unjustified, Download Order Copy
In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overturned a decision made by a single judge that had allowed a government employee’s absence from duty while his complaint against a transfer was still under consideration.
Absence from Duty is Unjustified
The division bench ruled that using a pending complaint as an excuse for being absent from work is not reasonable. According to the “no work, no pay” principle, the employee is not entitled to a salary for the time he was absent without authorization.
Division Bench Reverses Single Judge’s Order
Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Anuradha Shukla reversed the earlier decision of the single judge, which had supported the employee’s absence. The single judge had accepted the employee’s argument that he was being harassed by a superior, thus justifying his absence.
Background of the Case
The employee was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Khedicourt, but did not report for duty at the new location. He challenged this transfer in court, and while his complaint was pending, his transfer was adjusted to Government Middle School, Goula. However, the employee still did not join his new post and filed a complaint with the Madhya Pradesh State Scheduled Caste Commission, claiming harassment by his superiors due to his caste. Though the commission ruled in his favor and gave him a transfer to a location of his choice, he remained absent during the time the complaint was being processed.
Key Legal Question
The main issue before the court was whether an employee’s period of unauthorized absence could be justified based on claims of harassment by superiors, especially when the transfer order was not stayed, and the complaint was still under consideration by the commission.
Court’s Ruling and Legal Precedents
The division bench referenced a previous case, Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. (2015), and highlighted that employees cannot refuse to report to a new post while waiting for the outcome of a complaint or representation. An employee must comply with the transfer order and can pursue legal remedies after joining the new post.
Role of the State Scheduled Caste Commission
Regarding the employee’s complaint to the State Scheduled Caste Commission, the court discussed Article 338 of the Indian Constitution. This article grants the National Commission for Scheduled Castes the authority to investigate issues related to the rights and protections of Scheduled Castes. However, the court pointed out that several rulings by the Supreme Court and other High Courts have established that the commission cannot interfere with an employee’s service terms, such as postings, promotions, or transfers. These matters are governed by the service rules, and the commission’s role is limited to safeguarding Scheduled Castes’ rights, not altering service conditions.
Final Judgment
The court concluded that in the absence of any legal stay on the transfer order, the employee had no valid reason to refuse to report to the new post. Simply filing a complaint does not provide the right to ignore a transfer order. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier ruling of the single judge from September 26, 2023.
