SATISH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE services of the petitioner who is said to have remained unauthorisedly absent from duty came to be terminated vide order dt. 9th of March 94, which order was subject matter of challenge in a writ petition bearing SWP No. 2718/01. The said writ petition came to be allowed vide judgment dt. 29th of Aug02. Petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service. Liberty, however, was granted to the respondent authorities to hold a fresh enquiry, if they so desire. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this court in the writ petition referred to above, the respondents after initiating the departmental enquiries, have passed the orders which have been placed on record as Annexures C, D, E and F, vide which the period of absence of the petitioner mentioned in the said orders has been directed to be treated as dies -non. It is these orders, which are thrown to challenge in the present petition. Petitioner is also seeking a direction for restraining the respondents from making any recovery from the salary of the petitioner.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that while holding the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing. It is stated that there was no wilful absence on the part of the petitioner but due to the circumstances beyond his control as he had suffered from some medical problem and was under treatment. It is stated that the requisite certificates in this regard issued by the authority concerned which show that the petitioner was under treatment, have not been taken into consideration by the respondents. The said action of respondents in passing the orders impugned, is thus, said to be violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) RESPONDENTS in their objections have stated that the petitioner is habitual of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty. It is stated that after passing of the judgment by this court in the writ petition referred to above, departmental enquiries were initiated against the petitioner in which he was also associated and given full opportunity of being heard. It is thus stated that there is no violation of principles of natural justice.