This writ petition challenged departmental orders holding the petitioner in unauthorized absence as dies non. The High Court rejected the plea of non-intimation and found the absence unjustified, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4886 of 2010
Manaharan Lal Sahu, aged about 59 years, S/o Late Meghnath Sahu, Occupation Supervisor, Grade-II, City Division No.1, Torwa, Bilaspur, R/o Lane No.3 Bangalipara, Sarkanda,. Distt. Bilaspur (CG).
---- Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri AN Bhakta and Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocates. For Respondents : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
02/08/2018
2
in appeal preferred against the order of punishment decided on 03.08.2008 by the Chief Engineer whereby his appeal has been rejected.
3
13.07.2004, after revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner was ordered for reinstatement and was posted at Kargi Road Kota, Sub Division Pendra with immediate effect.
4
posting has been changed from 13.07.2004 and he was relieved on 16.07.2004. Further it was contended that the application was in the nature of reply to the application for grant of stay which itself means that the petitioner had sought for stay of the effect and operation of the order dated 13.07.2004 which was the order posting him to Kargi Road Kota.
5
the orders which were passed by the respondent management from time to time and never has the petitioner before filing of the present petition ever raised this grievance of not being provided joining at Kota in the absence of any relieving order. Moreover, from the proceedings it reveals that the respondents had taken steps for ensuring that the relieving order or order dated 13.07.2004 is duly served upon the petitioner and in the process a messenger also was sent to the residence of the petitioner and this order was brought to the notice of the family members who had, for some reasons, refused to accept the same and which later was also affixed on the doorsteps of the petitioner's residence.
10. Given the factual position and for all the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion that admittedly the petitioner was absent from duty for about 202 days and the absence was also without any justified or cogent reasons. Nor has the petitioner been able to give any substantial justification for the same except for the fact that he was not
6
intimated of the order dated 13.07.2004 which too has been found to be
incorrect and stands disproved.
11. Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that no strong case is made out. The petition fails and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
inder
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's unauthorized absence of 202 days from duty is justified.
Whether the petitioner's claim of non-intimation of the posting order defeats the finding of unauthorized absence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manaharan Lal Sahu
Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd
Secretary, Deptt. Of Energy And Power State Of Chhattisgarh
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd
Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd
Superintending Engineer, (O/M) Bilaspur Circle
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
