RAJESH KUMAR DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this petition, the Petitioner -Rajesh Kumar Deshmukh is questioning the legality and propriety of the order (No.101/xxx-11-2/13) dtd. 22/06/2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3- District And Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, whereby, his services have been terminated owing to his unauthorized absence from the duty for the period commencing with effect from 27/04/2016 upto 12/05/2016, as well as on the ground of his remained absent from the headquarter.

(2.) The facts, which are essential for adjudication of this petition are, that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon by Respondent No.3 vide its order dtd. 01/05/2014 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter, he was appointed as 4th class employee(Peon) probationally for a period of two years vide order dtd. 07/04/2016 (Annexure P-5) under certain terms and conditions stipulated therein. After his appointment as such, he moved an application on 13/04/2016 before the concerned authority seeking grant of earned leave for the period commencing with effect from 27/04/2016 upto 07/05/2016, as his marriage was to be solemnized from 28/04/2016 upto 29/04/2016. His application was, however, filed/closed by Respondent No.3 as he was not entitled to get the alleged earned leave and while rejecting his application as such, vide order dtd. 20/04/2016 (Annexure R/3-1), he was directed to apply for the said purpose for three days leave separately. Since the petitioner was absent from his duty for a period of 20 days commencing with effect from 24/04/2016 upto 12/05/2016, a show cause notice (Ex. P-9) was issued to him on 27/05/2016 and in response to it, he has submitted his reply (Ex. P-10), saying that since he was not aware that he is entitled to get the earned leave nor was aware regarding the rejection of his said application, therefore, he has gone on leave and has tendered his apology. His services have, however, been terminated by the Respondent No.3 vide impugned order dtd. 22/06/2016, owing to his unauthorized absence and that for leaving the headquarter which amounting to his gross negligence, as his alleged act is contrary to the provisions prescribed under Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965 read with Rule 8(4) of the C.G. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules,1961 , coupled with contrary to the instructions issued by the General Administration Department vide letter bearing No.C/3- 22/93/3/1, dtd. 30/08/1993.

(3.) While assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the alleged order of termination is stigmatic in nature, as the same has been passed without holding any departmental enquiry, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Vijayakumaran C P C Vs. Central University of Kerala and Others, reported in 2020 (12) SCC 426.