MAHESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-1 dated 8-1-2004. By the aforesaid order the period of absence of the petitioner from 24-11-2002 to 21-7-2003 total period of 240 days have been declared as dies non.

(2.) AS per the petitioner when he was working as Manager in District commerce and Industries Centre, Morena (M. P.) a show-cause notice was issued to him mentioning the facts that he was absent from duty w. e. f. 24-11-2002 to 21-7-2003 near about 240 days and he did not submit any application for the aforesaid period of absence, hence, why the aforesaid period be not treated as dies non.

(3.) EARLIER, the petitioner did not receive salary for certain period for the year of 2003. He filed a petition before this Court which was registered as w. P. No. 622/03 and this Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner or assign reasons for non-payment of salary. Thereafter, the aforesaid show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. He specifically mentioned that he was present on duty from 24-11-2002 to 21-7-2003. He further submitted that he was working in the office in the aforesaid period and also went on tour to Bhopal and same facts could be verified from the records. The petitioner mentioned detail facts in the reply, copy of which has been field as Annexure P-3. However, vide impugned order the authority rejected the contentions of the petitioner and treated the period of absence of the petitioner as dies non. While rejecting the contentions of the petitioner the authority held that with regard to submission of the petitioner that he was present in the office, the General Manager, industries in his noting mentioned that the petitioner was not present in the office and the documents submitted by the petitioner in his reply were related to his personal correspondence.