’r‘ . c , ? ( } < ’ 0 ( $§N§LE BE§E§$§§ BILASPUR Writ Petition Noggfo [zoos PETITIONER y: Munna Lal Nishad Aged about 41 years S/o. Mahesh Ram Nishad R/o. Chantidih, Opposite Government School, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C-G-) VERSUS RESPONDENT’S : '1. State Bank of india Through — Deputy General Manager Zonal' Office Bairan Bazar, Raipur (CrG.) /2. Assistant General Manager S'tafe Bank of lndia, Region H Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) x3. Branch. Manager Sfafe Bank of india Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.) - / WRIT PETITION UIA 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT XI—HC—78 3E p! 2 1mmm “W?w.&’&m€>. 1H 200 mmomwr) mamm wmm WWW§1§$W Bawanw mwm 1 5.6.2006:- Shri M.L. Pastore, counsel By this writ petition unde the petitioner. tic!e 226/227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner has questione the order dated 30‘" January 2004 passed by the Assistant Generai M nager, respondent No.2 and the order dated 21-4-2005 passed by the Branch Manager, respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been re oved from the service. The case of the petitioner i that after passing 8‘“ Ciass he was appointed as messenger cum farr sh in the State Bank of india, Korba Branch on 30-7-87. As he feii seri usiy iii, therefore, he remained absent from the duties for 166 days in b tween 3-6-2002 to 17-1-2003 and he had not attended the office. petitioner used to submit ieave appiications along with medical ce iiicates for the period of his absence but same were not considered by the respondents. During the enquiry proceeding also the petitioner plea ed that due to serious illness he was not able to perform the duties, terefore, he submitted an application supported by the medical certinca , but the disciplinary authority did not consider his plea favourably and is ued show cause notice. The ground for absence was genuine. The pet ioner preferred an appeal against the _ order dated 304-2 removal before the disciplinary authority, respondent No.1 herein, but the ap eal has been dismissed. l have heard learned counse for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the pe tioner argued that the petitioner was not able to remain present on d on account of illness and for that purpose he submitted medical ce ificates but those medical certificates were not considered. r f r r e t 0 u XI—HC-78 EW,W,W _ . WW 117i 200 WW(W) WW§wW mmm ‘ mmm “$2— agmm nexure—P/S shows that first charge against the petitioner was unau orized absence of 166 days ranging between 3-6-2002 to 17-1-2003 a d other charge was that on eariier two occasions he remained unauthori edly absent for a period of 443 and 165 dayS and for that purpose he was lready punished. From perusal of the appeii e order Annexure-P/7, it shows that the petitioner was served with char e sheet on 11-3-2003 but he did not prefer to file reply of the charge heet. The enquiry officer enquired into the articie of charges and he rea hed to the conclusion that the charges are established. He submit his report on 11-9-2003 and the disciplinary authority issued no ice on 30‘“ September 2003 to the petitioner with a copy of the repo of the enquiry officer, but the petitioner ‘ again did not prefer to We reply fkthe same. Again show cause notice was issued on 5-1 2-2003 but re ly of the same was not tiled. He was given opportunity of personal hea ing but he did not utilize that, therefore, the disciplinary authority passed e penalty of removal from service vide order dated 30-1-2004, against hich the petitioner preferred an appeal and same was rejected by the a pellate authority vide‘order dated 21-4- 2005. Perusal of the documents-submitted by the petitioner along with this petition shows that the petiti ner remained unauthorizedly absent for 166 days, therefore, charge she was issued to him and Enquiry Officer was appointed but he did not file any reply of the charge sheet. Even he did not file reply against the re ort of the Enquiry Officer, which was served upon the petitioner. The elevant papers show that the petitioner was not able to show tothe Enqu ry Officer that his absence from the duty for 166 days was not unauthoriz d. He did not produce any evidence to Perusai of charge sheet n t XI—HC‘78 33W,WW S‘UH'IX mm...nuununnnnm 200 k4\\lk / WW(W) mam? WWW mmm ”3— mm‘ agwiifm * show that on account of itlness he was not able to present on the duty. The papers also show that on earlier occasions also the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from the duty for a period of 443 days and second time 165 days and for that purpose he was already punished. Therefore, the petitioner was habit Jal absconder from the duty. in the above circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to V make out a case for judicial review that how the enquiry ‘conducted by enquiry officer and the order of appellate authority is without jurisdiction or contrary to the rules or proper opportunity was not given to the petitiOner to defend his case. ln the circurrstances, l do not find any substance in this petition, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Ban/e L, Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge