SHRIKRISHNA PANDEY Vs. CHHATTISGARH VIDHAN SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.05.2011 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Lower Division Clerk (for short 'the LDC') in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, has been dismissed from service, under the provisions of Chapter IX Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules, 1966").

(2.) The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC vide order dated 29.09.2003. After completion of his probation period, he was regularized by order dated 03.12.2005. The petitioner was the elected President of the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Sachvialaya Shashkiya Karmachari Sangh. On account of certain illegalities and irregularities, the petitioner made representations before the respondent authorities regarding various demands of the employees. The petitioner applied for leave on 27.04.2011 and proceeded on leave without sanction, in anticipation of the same. The Government of Chhattisgarh, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 4 of the Chhatisgarh Atyavashyak Sewa Sandharan Tatha Vichhinnata Nivraran Adhiniyam, 1979 (for short 'the Act, 1979'), passed an order dated 03.05.2011 declaring the services of the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Sabha Sachivalaya as essential services to prohibit refusal to work. Immediately thereafter, by notice dated 04.05.2011, the petitioner was directed to submit his reply regarding unauthorized absence from service, which amounts to misconduct i.e. unbecoming behaviour of the petitioner. The said notice was duly replied on 07.05.2011 at 4 p.m. and immediately thereafter, the impugned termination order dated 07.05.2011 was issued by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the punishment of removal from service is a major penalty under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966 and before passing the impugned order, proper departmental enquiry was necessary, as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1966. He would next contend that on the contrary, the impugned order itself states that no enquiry is possible before termination of service. Thus, the action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, and deserves to be set aside.