W TOE MI^S ©©dRT©P «T1®ieAS^RE A® IIASPTO (Q©) WRIT mmmw NO* ^sz^ @F 2@@4 /^ ^^ »al IQEisbn Sainiraikar S/Q »a<3ri Vr&sa^ *Eainralsar^a@ed afeout 49 yearsl iprkAng as Re^ffwe lasi)eGt@aEy Ebsted at 'B&hsii ©ffiG® Sonhatf Mstriet >r®ay z/6 Swihat; Mstrict K»rea (€©)• #tti!Kiiew» if 211 si .4? ihe State ©f(Sdaaisfeisgaztel3' . ihrowrh tshe %inGi^al seczetary iSB^artiaeaa^ of BBv@aue, .M8RtAary'B*'K»s«»dLl^to|f>'•aittu" {€3). ^e eeCTnissioner1^ fcu XlBhiletdi Bvsa »a^<aotoast»1 Cliha-&Msga2^i|( 9sd.^is (©3)» (laand a®c©r^siraoEi©b)» lailEtantptir Ed.st.rie-b 3 >2?ea (©3)o ,^ ^/t''^:<\>^ %y ^ -^ .^•"^' @at> Biivisioaaa. ©fficer(Revfla^e)K^ ^ •ailcant^mr^ Mstricfc IDsea ((3©)o ^^ f^isiidar*" , .._... /«-vfi iatl! Eistrict R»®a,»ailcmt^ur 'ms.'s PETZTXQBI WSER 226/227 ©y®E©eNSTITOTZGN ©»-:iN©ii S '^'. '^::^ Y^ I ^^1 HIGH COURT OF CHHArn'ISGARH AT BILASPU WRIT PETITION No. 4328 of2004 PETmQNER : Bal Krishna Tamrakar. VER8US RESPONDENTS : The State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTIOj'LOFJNDIA SB: Hon'ble Slui Satish K. Agmhotri, J. Present: Shi'i Sushobhit Sin^i, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lav^yer for the State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 31st day of March, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16.10.2001 (Annexure P/l) whereby the absence ofthe petitioner for a period from 19.05.2001 to 26.05.2001 without affording an opportumty of hearing has been treated as dies-non. 2. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a habitual absentee. The petitioner had to remaiii absent for about 8 days on account of illness ofhis daugbter. He tried to contact liis senior officers over telephone for leave, but he could not be successful, accordingly, he remained absent for the period from 19.05.2001 to 26.05.2001. Shri Sin^i farther subiiiits that the period of absence ouglit to have been treated as casual leave as there was sufflcient leave available in the account offhe petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Shri Roy, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submits that the authorities, exercising their power under the provisions of section 18 offhe Fundamental Rules, where in there is 110 prescription for afibrdmg opportunity ofhearing, considered the case ofthe petitioner and declared the period ofabsence as dies non. gS£%%^^, ^^?ss^^ y l^ '^ f 1^-3-%>.. V? 1 ^^.ll| j o^/ -2- This wouid not be a break in service however, it would certaiiily affect the grant ofincrement and other pensionary benefits. Havmg considered all the aspects ofthe matter, tliere may not be any prescription for aflbrding opportunity of hearing or following the principles ofnatural justice m the statutory provisions. But the principle of natural justice is iiiherent in all the provisions wherein an order is passed without hearing which results into civil (evil) consequences. Since the petitioner would not be entitled to increment and for flrture service career, and his pensionary benefits is also to be afiected by dies non, the petitioner was entitled for opportunity ofhearing before the impugiied order was passed. Iii view ofthat, the order dated 16.10.2001 (Amiexure P/l) is quashed. However, the authorities may reconsider the case ofthe petitioner alter affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order fbr declaring dies non, leave without pay or grant of casual, leave in accordance with law. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aniit