^-z HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGWH : BiLASPUR PETIT!ONER RESPONDENTS WRST PETiTION (S) N0. 5107 OF 2009 -M.S. Dabar, S/o Shri P.S. Dabar, aged 'about 44 years, woritingas Sub Enginser at OfRce of Exeeutive Engineer, PMGSY 'mptementation unit No.3, Surajpur, District Sarguja, CG, R/o viilage & post Wampur, Tehsii Lahar, Dlst. Bhind (RAP). Versus 1. State of Chhatti^arh, throigh the Secretery, Department of Pancteyat & Rura! Development, Mantraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Engineering Ssn/tees, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (CG). 3. Commissloner, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (CG). 4. Coltector, District Bastar, JagdaSpur (CG). 5. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Bastar, Jagdaipur (CG). 6. Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat, Nsrayanpur, Dist. Narayanpur (CG). <Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. itgnih<^ri, J. Present:- Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel for the pstitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General tor ihe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day ofSeptember. 20Q9) 1) Heard tearned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner, by this petition, seeks quashing of thg order dated 29-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the Connmissioner, Bastar Division, Jagdaipur, in departmentai appeai No.09/B-121/2008-09 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, order dated 18-3-2002 (Annexure - Pi'2) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Baster, Jagdalpur, whereby 26 days Leave Without Pay (LWP) i.e. from 14-1-2002 to 8-2-2002 has 'i, S ^^^sss':', ^- 1 j :i. ^aei-^'../ •%^v'^v •^fc. ^! been granted to the petitioner and the memo dated 4-3-2003 (Annexure - P/3) whereby the Chief Executive Officer, Zita Panchayat, Bastar, Jagdalpur, intimated the petitioner that his appiication for grant of earned leave has been rejarted by order dated 18-3-2002. The petitioner further prays that the raspondent authorities mav be direeted to sanction 26 davs eamed leave and to make oavment for the said oeriod with interest. 3) The petitioner, who is working as Sub Engineer in the offioe of Executive Engineer, PMGSY implementation Unit No.3, Surajpur, District Sarguja, has submitted an application on 11-1-2002 (Annexure - P/5) before the respondent No.S for grant of casual leave for the period from 15-1-2002 to 18-1-2002. The respondent No.6 issued a show cause notice 4-2-20Q;2, (Annexure - P/&) to the petitioner calling upon the peUtionerto explain asto why he remained absent from his duties unauthorizedlv and al«>directed him to submit his reoiv within three davs. The Detitioner submitted his reoly on 14-2-2002 (Annexure - P/6) to the showcause notice and reauested for grant of earned leave for the teave period. 4) After considering the repty submitted by the petitioner, e order dated 18-3-2002 has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer whereby 26 days LWP i.e. from 14-1-2002 to 8-2-20(3 has been granted to the petitioner. The same has also been «smmunicatedto the oetitioner on 4-3-2003. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by ths petitioner, against the order 18-3-2002, has been rejected by the Commissioner by order dated 28-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) after considering the facts and circumstanees of the case in its letter ami spirit. While passing the impugned order (Annexure - P/1), the Commissioner observed that the petitioner remained absent from his duties unauthorizedly. The Chief Executive Officer informed the p^. ;<^ N^ Ij 3- Gowri Commissioner that on several occasions the petidoner remained absent from his duties unauthorisedly, wittiout permission. 5) Reliance of the learned counsei appearing for the petitioner on ths decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Punjab vs. Dr. P.L. Singla and Divn!. Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao are of n" assfetance, as the facts invo'ved those cases were different than the issue and facts involved in the case on hand. 6) The contention of the petitioner with regard to not affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 18-3-2002 is concemed, the same deserves to be rejected, as the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 18-3-2002 only after issulng show cause notice to ie petitioner and after receipt of repiy ofthe petitioner to the show cause notice. 7) in view of foregoing, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and the same are just, proper and warranting no interference bv this Court. 8) In the result, the petition is liable to be and is accordingiy dismissed at Uie motion stage itseif. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge