Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"1. That, you were appointed as lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering Department at Durgapur Institute of Advance Technology and Management vide letter no DIATM/Appointment/Faculty/719 dated 01/06/2010 with certain terms and conditions to be obeyed by you.

2. That, you were a probationer on the fateful day as per the appointment letter.

3. That, according to your statement you met an accident on 2nd July 2011 and after completion of your necessary treatment, you were released from the hospital on July 16th 2011. It has also revealed from the records that you were stable on the date of release from the hospital and as such it was natural expectation of the Institute Management that you will immediately contact the authority of the institute to take appropriate steps for regularization of your leave of absence as per the rules of the institute, but you did not do so & you remained absent, as such; it is deemed that you neglected to abide by the rules and regulations stipulated by the institute management. Moreover, your such conduct was deemed to be not constructive and also was not in parity with the educational environment of the Institute, which caused sufferings of the students.

4. That, as alleged you have appeared before the Institute Management on January 31st 2012 i.e. on expiry of 6 months although as per the record you were stable on the date of release i.e. on 16th July 2011 to report to the Institute Management to take appropriate steps for regularization of leave as per the rules of the Institute, thus and remained absent unauthorisedly.

5. That, your such prolonged and unauthorized absence has given an indication to the Institute Management which deemed to be that you are interested and/or incapable to continue in the employment, more so, the management of the Institute is unable to allow such luxury at the cost of the students by way of depriving them from necessary education.

12. That upon a perusal of the grounds taken in issuing the impugned communication dated 31.05.2013, it appears that the Appellants proceeded to assume that although he was released from the hospital on 16th July, 2011 and although he was stable on the date of release, the Petitioner was expected to immediately contact the authority of the institute towards taking appropriate steps for regularizing his leave or absence but since he had remained absent, it was deemed that he had neglected to abide by the rules and regulations of the Institute. The Appellants further took the plea that the conduct of the Petitioner therefore was not constructive nor in parity with the educational environment of the Institute which caused sufferings to the students.