@ jg g? WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn’d.) W Shri A. N. Bhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents] State. O R D E R ( Passed on this 11th Day of April, 2009) The petitioner, by this petition, impugns the order dated 16.3.2002 (Annexurc P] 1), passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was removed he service on account of the fact that the petitioner remained absent from duties for the pen‘od mm 5.12.1995 to 7.7.2001 without permission of the authorities. 2. The brief facts in nutshell are that the peu'u'oner, while working as Assistant Sub Inspector in District Surguja, was transferred on his owngr6quest and thus he was relieved on 5.12.1995 to join the trans$rred place on 7.12.1995. After m HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I'I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR Petition 1S! No. 1892 of 2009 Writ Petition Bhagwat Prasad Rajak, aged about 57 years, son ofa Late Shri Jagat Ram Rajak, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police (Dismissed), present address Katiyapara, Durga Chowk, Bi]aspur(CG). \ Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Sccxetary, Depnmnent of Home AfEaiIs, Dau Kalyan Singh BhaWan, Raipur (CG) The Dilectm‘ General of, Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Bilaspnr. Distt. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Police Ambikapur, Saxguja (CG) V 5. The Superintendent of Police, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) mlieving on 5. 12. 1995, instead ofjoining thr transfbrred place of posting on ’7. 12. 1995, without seeking any permission of the authorities he remained continuously absent hom duties till 7.7.2001. Accordingly, a departmental enquily was initiated and proper opportunity of hearing was aEorded to the petitioner: In the departmental enqm'fy it was found that the absence of the petitioner for a period of about hve years was unauthorized. The reasons shown by the petitioner that on account of death of his wife he did not join the services for nve years was not found reasonable. 3. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police, Raipur on 16.4.2002. The appellate authdlity after having considered all the aspects of the matter dismissed the appeal on 19.9.2003 (Annexuxe P/9). Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a mercy appeal before the State Government which was also dismissed on 19.12.2008. Thus, this petition against the order of removal dated 16.8.2002. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed explicit reliance on the provisions of Regulation 180 and 192(C) of , Chapter VI of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. Regulation 180 provides for extraordinary leave in special circumstances and Regulation 192 (C) provides that if the absentee subsequently appears and establishes good reasons for his absence he may be re-instated with the sanction of the Inspector-General who, ,has power to declare that the J absentee’s previous service, forfeited by the iilling up of his post shall not be forfeited. The provisions of both the above Regulations are not relevant and applicable to the facts of the present case where proper departmental enquiry was held and it is a case of continuous unauthorized absence, where the petitioner, being a man in uniform, has remained absent without permission or sanction of the higher authorities. Having heard leaxned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the documents appended thereto, it is a case Where it cannot be held that the order imposing penalty of removal h‘om service is illegal or impmper. The petitioner was anorded sumcient oppoxtunity of hean‘ng and the reasons assigned by .him for remaining absent was not found satisfactory. The depaxtmental enquiry can also not be held w improper, as the petitioner had full opportunity of hearing. Thus, there is no merit in the case. The orders passed by the authorities below are unexceptionable and warrants no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ‘ ‘ Sdk Satish K. Agnihotri i - Judge i 1 i ‘ i\,