BASANTI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge to the present writ petition is to the order dated 21.7.2009, Annexure P-1, whereby the Respondents have ordered for treating the period between 6.12.2005 to 25.4.2007 as dies non.

(2.) Facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner who is working as an Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (ANM, in short) was placed under suspension on 27.9.2005 vide Annexure P- Subsequently, the order of suspension stood revoked on 5.12005 vide Annexure P-3. Though the order of suspension stood revoked, it appears that the Petitioner did not join at the place of posting as per the revocation order and ultimately joined her services only on 26.4.2007. The Respondents therefore treated the intervening period from the date on which the suspension order was revoked, i.e., 6.12005, till the Petitioner had resumed her duties on 26.4.2007, i.e., till 25.4.2007, as unauthorized absence from the duties and have ordered for treating the said period as dies non.

(3.) The solitary contention which the Petitioner raises is that the order of dies non issued by the Respondents is not sustainable as the same has been issued without conducting any enquiry whatsoever neither was the Petitioner given an opportunity of hearing to defend the action proposed by the Respondents nor has she been given an opportunity of hearing of any nature, as such the impugned order is prima facie bad in law and is in violation of principles of natural justice. He refers to a decision of this Court in the case of Bal Krishna Tamrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 31.2010 in W.P. No. 4328/2004.