SAMRAT SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 21.02.2013 (Annexure P-9), whereby his services have been terminated. A writ of mandamus has also been sought to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as the petitioner was on medical leave on the advice of Civil Surgeon and, thereafter, he was not allowed to continue in service.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed under the scheme of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan against the post advertised in the year 2010 vide order dated 19.11.2010 on the post of English Master. During service, the petitioner applied for medical leave from 21.11.2012 to 19.1201 As per the case of the petitioner, his leave was sanctioned by the respondent-authority and he was also marked to be on leave in the attendance register. He joined his duties on 20.12012 but after one month, again the doctor advised him for complete bed rest for a period of two weeks. As per the case of the petitioner, he had again moved an application for leave, which was duly forwarded to the office of the District Education Officer, Mohali but it was returned back on the ground that it was not sent on the prescribed proforma. Petitioner requested for extension of medical leave for further 28 days from 002013 to 01.03.2013 on medical ground by moving leave application, which was duly forwarded by the Head Master of the School to the District Education Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him. Said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner but ultimately vide order dated 21.02013, the services of the petitioner were terminated and said order of termination dated 21.02013 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on leave, which were duly applied and sanctioned and was duly supported by the medical certificate of the CMO. The reasons and circumstances were beyond the control of the petitioner and subsequently, the application was moved for extension of leave.