IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP-T No. 2180 of 2008 Reserved on: 21.02.2011. Decided on : 22.02.2011 Deepak Bhushan …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st July, 1999 whereby his services were terminated in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk on compassionate grounds under the kith and kin policy in Government High School, Bani-Materni, Tehsil Arki, District Solan on 15.9.1995. His appointment was made in place of his father, who had died in harness. It is alleged that the petitioner hardly worked in the school and started going on 2 leave and from August, 1997 he remained on leave. On 8.9.1997 the petitioner sent an application for grant of leave upto 17.9.1997 alongwith medical certificate. Thereafter, he sent another leave application for the period 3.3.1998 to 31.3.1998. He, however, remained absent from duty and did not rejoin duty. On 11.2.1999 the respondent-State issued chargesheet to the petitioner as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him but the petitioner did not care to reply to the same nor did he join his duties. Thereafter, a notice was published in the newspaper directing the petitioner to join duties within one month failing which ex-parte decision under the rules would be taken against him. This notice was published in the Dainik Tribune on 17.4.1999 but the petitioner did not join service. The services of the petitioner were still not terminated and on 21.7.1999 another notice was issued to him by registered post at his home address in which it was mentioned that the petitioner was a temporary servant and if he does not join duty his services would be terminated. The petitioner did not reply to the notice and then his services were terminated. 3. The explanation of the petitioner is that he was suffering from a mental disorder and therefore, could not join duty. It would be pertinent to mention that when the petitioner originally applied for leave he had submitted 3 certificate issued by the Ayurvedic Chakitsak and the local medical officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer for obtaining medical certificate about his illness but he did not care to appear before this authority. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was given a number of opportunity to join duty but he did not care to do so for more than two years. It is only after the order of termination was passed that the petitioner suddenly was willing and ready to join duty. Even with the writ petition no material has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was in fact suffering from any mental ailment. It is more than apparent that this plea of mental ailment is an excuse which has been taken after the termination of his service. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that once it has been decided to order a disciplinary proceeding an inquiry should have been held and the services of the petitioner should not have been terminated without holding any inquiry. It is not denied that the petitioner was a temporary civil servant and therefore, there is nothing which prevented the State from terminating the service of the petitioner in terms of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules. 4. In any event, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the 4 Constitution of India. Till date, the petitioner has not given any valid reason for his unauthorized absence. There is no reason why an employee who willfully remains absent from duty for no rhyme or reason should be permitted to take technical pleas after his services has been terminated that too after giving him a number of opportunities. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 22nd February, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.