Naveen Prakash Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - District Education Officer Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Block Education Officer Block- Narayanpur, District : Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

20.02.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate for the petitioner as well as

¶20

Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents.

¶21

2

¶22

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned termination order 9/3/23 (Annexure P-6) and issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to give joining to the petitioner as early as possible from 8/6/2017 along with all consequential benefits.

¶24

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to call for the record of the entire case in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶26

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher vide appointment order dated 03.07.1996 and has been performing duties sincerely and honestly. On 11.08.2009, the petitioner went missing and did not attend school, following which the petitioner’s elder brother informed the concerned authorities on 12.08.2009, 13.08.2009, and 22.08.2009, and respondent No.2, vide letter dated 22.08.2009, directed the police to take necessary action. The petitioner returned on 03.06.2017 and submitted a representation dated 08.06.2017 for rejoining, stating that due to family issues he had become mentally unwell but was now medically fit. Despite

¶27

3

¶28

correspondence among the authorities on 29.05.2018 and 28.12.2018, no action was taken on the petitioner’s representation. As per a letter dated 08.02.2022, no departmental enquiry had been conducted, and no termination order was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted several oral and written representations on 18.02.2019, 11.01.2022, 03.02.2022, 24.02.2022, and 29.03.2022, but the representations were not considered.

¶29

4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.7511 of 2022 before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to decide the representation vide order dated 22.11.2022 and the respondent authorities dismissed the petitioner’s representation vide order dated 09.03.2023, claiming that the petitioner was absent for more than five years and deemed to have resigned.

¶30

5. Aggrieved with the illegal and perverse inaction of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present petition for redressal of his grievances.

¶31

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination dated 09.03.2023 is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law, as the petitioner is a confirmed Assistant Teacher and no departmental enquiry whatsoever was conducted prior to passing the order. It is contended that the respondents have invoked Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010 (for short, ‘Rules of 2010’) and treated the prolonged

¶32

4

¶33

absence as deemed resignation, without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing as mandated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Such action, according to learned counsel, is in clear violation of the constitutional protection available to a permanent Government servant and contrary to the settled law laid down by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sadhna Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh and another (WPS No. 4329 of 2018) vide order dated 09.07.2025.

¶34

7. Learned counsel further submits that neither Rule 11 of the Leave Rules nor the relevant Fundamental Rules provide for automatic abandonment of service on account of absence beyond five years. Even assuming misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the respondents were legally bound to initiate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and to comply with the procedure contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The abrupt termination without conducting enquiry, without considering the petitioner’s explanation regarding his mental instability during the relevant period, and without application of mind, renders the impugned order arbitrary, perverse and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶35

8. It is also submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily returned and submitted representation on 08.06.2017 expressing his willingness to resume duties and to undergo medical examination to establish

¶36

5

¶37

his fitness. Despite the direction issued by this Court in WPS No.7511 of 2022 to decide the representation, the respondents have mechanically terminated his services. The action of the respondents, therefore, is unconstitutional, discriminatory and not in consonance with fair administrative practice. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned termination order dated 09.03.2023 be quashed and appropriate relief, including reinstatement in service, be granted in the interest of justice.

¶38

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition is a second round of litigation by the petitioner, arising from the same cause of action and seeking relief already considered by this Court. In compliance with the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in WPS No. 7511 of 2022, the Director, Public Instructions, Raipur, examined the petitioner’s representation and passed the order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure R/1). The said order records that the petitioner remained continuously absent from duty from 10.09.2008 to 08.06.2017 and, as per Rule 11 of the Rules of 2010, a Government servant absent continuously for more than five years shall be deemed to have resigned from service unless the Governor, in view of exceptional circumstances, otherwise determines. The Director further held that the District Education Officer is the competent authority to decide the matter. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3, being the competent authority, passed the order dated 09.03.2023

¶39

6

¶40

terminating the services of the petitioner on account of continuous unauthorized absence for a period of 07 years, 09 months, and 28 days, treating it as deemed resignation in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules of 2010. The said order is fully reasoned and passed in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶41

10. It is further submitted by learned State counsel that the actions of the answering respondents were in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government, and no irregularity or illegality has been committed. The petitioner’s services were rightly terminated in view of his prolonged absence and in strict compliance with the applicable law. In view of the foregoing, the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶42

11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with the writ petition.

¶43

12. From perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2023, it is evident that the petitioner has been removed from service on the ground of continuous unauthorized absence for a period of about eight years. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of removal has been passed without initiation of any departmental enquiry and without affording him an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as well as the constitutional safeguards available to a permanent Government servant. On the other hand, the State has

¶44

7

¶45

sought to justify the action by placing reliance upon Rule 11 of the Rules of 2010 and the circular dated 01.08.2013 issued by the State Government, which provides that if a Government servant remains absent continuously for more than five years, he shall be deemed to have resigned from service unless the Governor, in view of exceptional circumstances, otherwise determines. The petitioner admittedly remained absent for a prolonged period of about eight years.

¶46

13. However, the question that arises for consideration is whether such deemed resignation could have been invoked without complying with the procedural safeguards contemplated under the very circular relied upon by the respondents. The relevant portion of the circular dated 01.08.2013 reads as under :-

¶47

“कोई शासकीय सेवक, अवकाश स��त या ��ना अवकाश के, �ा�य सेवा से ��, पांच व�� से अ��क �नरंतर अव�� के ��ये कत � य से अनुप!"#त र�ता �ै तो उसे शासकीय सेवा से &यागप( �)या �ुआ समझा जायेगा ज� तक �क रा.यपा�, /करण की आपवा�)क प1र!"#�तय2 को )ेखते �ुए अ5य#ा �न�ा�1रत न करेः

¶48

पर5तु इन /ाव�ान2 को �ागू करने के पूव� उस शासकीय सेवक को ऐसी अनुप!"#�त के कारण2 को "प; करने �ेतु यु�<यु< अवसर �)या जायेगा ।”

¶49

14. A perusal of the above circular, it appears that though prolonged absence exceeding five years may result in deemed resignation, the same is not automatic or mechanical in nature. The proviso

¶50

8

¶51

appended to the circular clearly mandates that before applying such provision, the concerned Government servant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for his absence. Thus, the requirement of granting an opportunity is an inbuilt safeguard intended to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and to enable the competent authority to consider whether any exceptional circumstances exist warranting a different view.

¶52

15. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that prior to passing the impugned order dated 09.03.2023, the petitioner was issued any show cause notice specifically calling upon him to explain his prolonged absence in terms of the aforesaid circular. Though the petitioner had earlier submitted representations explaining that he was suffering from mental illness during the relevant period and had expressed willingness to resume duties, the impugned order does not reflect due consideration of the same after affording him a formal opportunity as contemplated under the circular. Since the circular itself requires that a reasonable opportunity be granted before treating the absence as deemed resignation, non-compliance thereof vitiates the impugned order.

¶53

16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.03.2023 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to issue an appropriate notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation regarding his long absence of about eight years and thereafter to

¶54

9

¶55

consider the matter afresh strictly in accordance with law, particularly in the light of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2010 and the circular dated 01.08.2013. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering the petitioner’s explanation and all relevant circumstances within a reasonable period.

¶56

17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. The quashment of the impugned order is confined solely to the ground of non-compliance with the procedural requirement of affording reasonable opportunity as envisaged in the circular dated 01.08.2013. The authorities shall be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law after following due process.

¶57

18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶60

Yogesh

Naveen Prakash Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Prakash Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devprasad Uraon Vs Jamunaprasad

Baldau Prasad Rathore Vs Union of India

Geeta Ram Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mordhwaj Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ignasius Kerketta Vs State of Chhattisgarh