E’i¥@H QGiiRT G3: CHHATT§$GARE EA"? EEUKgPEQ QEWSIQN EENGH WRE"? &P?Ei§. E$TISN 2 {1% QF THE H§@’=% ”LEGQR? O¥ QH%§§ET§$G§R%€ APPEAL I?) F§¥Vi$§QN EEMQH 1M3“? 2W§£€MRfW QWEE w? {1%} @F 1 mQfi QWER‘? RELE$ 2Q§§ Pi'e$eni : , $hri fmup :Y‘Jlajumdar, counsei forthg appeiSant. %? €EQ§3L£§¥E P-EQN‘QLE SHE RAJEEV Q§P?& 6J1 HON’BLE $HR§ $IJN§L KmiwaR $INE—§A§ J. Wa‘i? mwgwag Maw a? WM “mmEMm Swendra Singh, 33/0 Raamihm'g Singh; @9431 abcut 53 ywrg, Rm Qr NwH/m, Poiiae Line Rajnamégszan, 'x‘ districi ¥%a§man§gagn (CG; EELL‘EUJ Remaiawia $Lata Sf Cinhatéisgwh, Thmugh m $ecretar‘y, Department of Hame Affaim, DKS Bhawan, Manta’aEaya. Raipur(CG) Superintendei‘x‘i 0f Peiice, Rajnafidgaan, fjistrict Rajnanc‘gaon fCG‘ \ ) The CommiSSioner, Department of Trawwort RTO Officer, Raipur CG: Agaismni Gammisawmar, Department of Trampm, Raipur (CG) 5 Régicmal Trauwart Officar, Jegéaipur, Dismct Bamar (CG) A$d§iéenal Rwmnai Transp‘ori Officrclr, Raénandgaon {'36}; Tmnsport Officer, Mahammund, Disitféct Mahasamunrj {CG} 8 Director Ganerai of PaHce, Chhattiggam, RaEpur {CG} Engpecmr Genemi 0f Felice, Ramw '(CG) Shn A!ok Baksh: GovernmentgAdvocate for the State! respondents i JUDGMENT (18$ January, 2am 'The following fudgmenf of the Ctiiurt was V passed by Rajeev Gupta CJ h I i ‘ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission 2 AppeHant Surendra Smgn has filed this wnt appeat against the lmpugned order dated 07 12 2009 passed m W P (S) No 1500 3) The apoettant / oetmoner m his wnt petition was seeking a du'ectron to the respondents to pass specific order under Leave Rute 23 (4) (a) of the Chhatttsgarh CM! Serwces (Leave) Rutes 1977 on his jommo report dated O5 09 2007 4) The petitioner vrde order dated O5 06 2007 (Annexure P/3) was sent back to hrs parent department t e Police Department from petitioner was further directed to report for hrs jomlng In the Police Department atDantewada 5) Learned Srngle Judge on a thorough conSIderatron of the submrsstons of learned counsel for the partres dismrssed the wrrt ‘ petrtron wrth the followrng observatrons ‘13 Havrng regard to the over all conduct of the j petittoner the petrtroner rs not entrtled to any retret 7 respondent authorities alt other 11 employees have rorned therr respectlve praces The petttroner alone remamed unauthorrzedly absent :n order to avord' r of 2009 Transport Department wherern he was working on deputatron The p ' ’ ' Pursuant to the order dated 5 6 2007 passed by the joining at District Dantewada on one or other excuse for the last more than two years. it appears that the conduct of the petitioner is not roper, as initiatty the petitioner preferred a writ pe‘ition being WP (S) No.5148 of 2008, for the samei relief. Second time notice was served pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by this‘Court in the first writ petition i.e WP (S) No.5148 of 2008, the petitioner has attempted to file second writ petition aimost on the same grounds. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner through out by coming to this Court time and again without any basis amounts to misuse of judicial process. The respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps’against the petitioner in accordance with law. ’14. In the resuit, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost quantifiedto be Rs.3,500/—“ 6) Though a period of more than 2 1/2 years has elapsed since passing of the above order dated 05.06.2007, the petitioner is deliberately avoiding »joining his duties gt Dantewada on one ground or the other. 7) i On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; and the above mentioned broad features of the v case, we do not find any good grou’nd for interference in this infra Court appeal. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ‘W » TT l Sdl- smHA . ii ‘r 1‘ fr; Sd/— i sUNIL KUMAR r r ijr‘l Chief Justice I l Judge