MRUDULA RISHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order Annexure P/11 passed by the Government of Chhattisgarh on 29-6-2004 declaring the period of absence from 28-2-2003 to 12-10-2013 (227 days) as 'dies non'.

(2.) While working as Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, the petitioner appears to have proceeded on leave without informing the superiors. It is manifest that the petitioner has been transferred from Bilha to Kasdol, Raipur, on 7-2-2003 where she submitted joining on 27-2-2003 and applied for leave for the period from 1-3-2003 to 3-3-2003, however, she remained absent from her duties till 12-10-2003. It is this period, which has been treated as 'dies non'.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the same having adverse consequences like withholding of salary, reduction of pension, etc. It could not have been passed without following the basic principles of natural justice.