% (;7) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR' WP. No. we ‘7 /2oo4 ,/ Petitioner. SHAILESH KUMAR PANDEY, Q\)\ r”. aged about 36 years, S/o Late Shri Vishnu Prasad Pandey R/o Village Mahidalkala P.O. Gajan, Via RampurrBaghelan, Distt. Satna (M.P.) ‘ ‘d‘LgM /, lk (1/ VERSU S Respondents 1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through : Secretary, Department 0f Forest, Bhopal (C.G.) State 0f Chhattisgarh, Through : Secretary, Department 0f Forest, p.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Principle Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur (C.G.) Conservator of Forest, Kanker Circle, Kanker (C.G.) Divisional 'Forest Officer, Forest Division Narayanpur, Narayanpu-r (C.G.‘) - 3§ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22 7227/63; THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF‘ MANDAMUS, AND ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMED FIT. e, H Hon’ble Shri Satish‘K. Agnihotri, J. . P. N9. 1067 of 0M- W 2 ailesh Kumar Pandey Sh ~ Vs ersu tate of'Madhya Pradesh an others, S d ’ R o RDE‘ Sd/_ Sau'sh K, 4E .1 o Judge \F\z m $h§i§esh Kum’ Pamev ai Sia‘é: 0‘? Léaeiéva; P:’ad:ash amt: $Em‘f éyaz Naveai mma Sim”; far wra VVS. Sia‘er’ M wgpawema , Dy. AK}. NGQ w}??? Er“: “3"”; 5. Awiricé Eugbe a Pang: Lawyey e L: y Non-e for respomdem Nam 1 filed Wider Aréide$ 22/22' a? Me Cenwéiuiian 0f !:3z§§a 5s; diract'i v1 zigaém't ihe imguggmd 0&9? daiad 14.Q§.1$§4, axm? 5 mg? wass removed fmm 3ewice 0n {‘2}. Tiqe ind§$puisi§3e fasts M n rtppainiac§ a5 Lmwy DiviSmn €3§$rk 0r: G?‘Q$§.1Q§3 {RnnemreuP/E {simrnca i0 $:;:‘§ r appoinimw? was; “ §>€§Ei$§ar§e¥ imuia‘ ha terminatgré a a ma mcmh wiary wi'Eh gixwgnm 3 cfzg m:mi§‘;’3 : k gig-eviclad “‘3 ’ m ‘ u " i:“r_ ‘g g n: “ 04.1%.w93 and wiihout wa§€§ng fer forma! ganction, $e’“:\’aha efrice and remained 3bseni. The Divisicna$ Forest Gfficer —- rewanden? N05 by noiicé damd 31 .121893 (Annexui‘e-PQ) infos'mea’ €he petéiiomer ta Jiom the (My wiihm 3. permd a? iwc daya a5 he had lef‘i the affice withoui‘ abtaining pr§or gaermiS$i0m faim'ag which praceedings may be initiai‘ed for his remeval ‘i‘r'am ssrvma The petitmner wag thereafier iSszueai a Shaw cauw notirse (m G’?.QE.‘¥Q§4 (Annexure-P/i‘}, for vialaiing the Ruie 7’ a? MP. Sonduci Rum 1965‘ m respanse ts ihe fh'si meta‘ce dated 3’? .’§2.1993~ {F123; the pai§ti0ner sent a ietter (Annexure Fi/E'5 (1)) by registered pos": mihkth was ratéwed in ihe Gf‘fice of respoment No. 5 0n 2’: .01.1§§4( The petitioner in the said ie'tier expressed his inabiiiiy to j'oir: the offima and statec? that The pet§iimwer woulté 30in ”me affice aftsr having been found fii. Th9 petitianer fu§§iey mquesiéd :“Or grant o? ieave. No repiy to the $how muse naéae éated £31 .03.1§$4 (W3) was fiied‘ Tha enquiry, m amence of any resmnse fmm the mti‘iicner; was conciuded and on me basisu m‘ ‘the saici eréquiry §t was bunt! by onjer dazed M.DQ‘1§94 (Annexure FEE-53(3),) that the pe$§tioner was n9 iangei’ intaesied in continuing the Service. (3) The pati'iioner, ihereafter, {emamed si§ent and after a periad of abeut ‘iO years mack an agapHcaiion daied QM .20’94 (Amexure I lb} fa respandent No. 3 for permiiiing him 'tca jam “ 9 3ew§ca Rewarrdeni Not 4~ i30n3emator af Fqre$t by ordtaz' éated 2&022‘364 {Amexme W8} dismiwed “me apdpiica‘técn of the mii‘t§aner daad 12m .2304 cm the gmund ijhat ma 5&wiceS of ihe petitiomer have mar} :§i§c0niinued on the ground of somdition Ne. 3 of the appoimmént (Ema, 39mg aggrieved, the pet§€jmer Ms fiied ihia wrii peti'tiOrz impugning the order dated 14.?39:1994, The pemioaei' has michaienged §:he va§idity 0f me Gn‘je? dams} 2$.U2I2Q94 m IWpa& m$ ‘4 i E rm e‘ ppm $ § um WK $ ©$ W :$%WQ3& x 1 u a Ci 3Qw< 8 u % r; rx A '@W¥ a J ;s; ‘3 w d WV Q <5§ ’¢ i we manth er mm‘e. it Wcyuld iae wesumed Ehat the patétéangr wag m lmgar Enterestea‘ in. caminuaiiom 0f $ewice‘ The petkicmer W225; given sm‘ficiem notice and it is riot ihe case of ihe petE'zione‘r tha? he has not received the notice‘ but; the peiitEoner did mt respond t0 the m€§ce anii did no‘g jain the mrvhe even aPgef beEng faund mediaaiiy fit Suffigient notice has abo been given to the petiticngr to find out whemer 7e 1'emained absem WEifuRy. Gn Qhe basis 0f preiiminaiy enquiry if wa$ foumd groved by arder dated 14.69.1934 that the gaatEtmner was not éntaresied in cantinuing the Service. The petitioner has m5: chaHenged the emquiw or at‘xy amev gormzedurai aspect of the enquiry within § reasmaMe ‘E‘ime ami waiteri fer mare ihan 10 yeam befa‘re fiiing the apptica$§0n an 12.01 .20G4. The peii’cicmer fwther dee$ mt (iisgute abcut hé$ abwnc‘g anm’ ihe mmditiam a?“ the aggeimmem arder. ti is weii wiziied that ari emggkuyge appointeé on temmrary ba$i$ c562 ham tne mn3€iiL§icnai Schiame 0f i'ne ampioymam, haa; no i’igi’i‘t to ihé p0$i and i’ne §eiiiic>ner cai‘i'risi be diiectzéci '0 m reirisiia‘aed in $ei’vice. (3} Leaking imm aii angies, this Gour‘t namai exertiw iiS paw/er iii exeicise of iis jurisdictim undaw Ai‘iicie 228 of The Constimtbn 0f india to grant ’(1 writ 0i difgctiDn to the resmmien‘zs far reinstgitiw the pe'tiiiorzéi' and grariting him saiary and oihei' bgnefi‘ts w.e.f. i8.€)919§4. i'iie writ .mtiiion is acacrdimiy dismissed. No order a% t1) vastf]: Sd/— ismsh K. Agni-ham ‘W "i‘ Judge nnnnn (i986) 4 scc 566 (a 995) 4 scc 172 (2006) 4 sec 322 3M0 A<