SURESH SAI BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. This petition challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 30. 01. 2008 (Annexure P/1), whereby services of the petitioner was terminated on account of the established fact that the petitioner remained absent for a long period.

(2.) SHRI Baeg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact of the petitioner being absent from November, 2002 till termination order was passed. However, he submits that the petitioner was not well and accordingly, he has submitted medical report before this court alongwith the petition. Thus, the impugned order passed by the authorities is vitiated as the authorities have not taken into consideration the illness of the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer for the state/respondent, per contra, submits that the petitioner, without any permission remained absent since November, 2002 till the order of termination was passed. The respondent authorities have served several show-cause-notices dated 03. 11. 2004, 28. 03. 2005, 07. 02. 2006, 30. 06. 2006, 14. 07. 2006, 01. 09. 2007 and 13. 11. 2007 (Annexure R/1 colly. ). Thereafter, notices were published in the newspapers on 02. 01. 2008, 04. 01. 2008 and 21. 0. 2008 (Annexure R/2 colly. ). Despite serving of show-cause-notices and publication in the newspapers, the petitioner did not attend the office. The petitioner has also not made any representation in response to the show-cause-notices served upon him and newspaper publications, time to time.