AFR ( EEG}! COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR WRIT PETITXON (S) No. 1203 0f2008 PETITIONER $uresh Sai Bhagat S/o Sundar Sai, aged aboui 41 yearg, R/O Makarchuna? P.O, Bagbahar Tah Paihalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Commissioner of Excise D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Excise Coilector, Distt. Excise Oiiice Raigarh (CG) 3. The Assistant Excise Commissioner, EXcise Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. i’resent: Shri M.K.Baeg. Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/'respmidems. QRAL SEREER i (Passed on G3ra day of July, 2008) With the conseni of {he parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finaiiy. This petition chaiienges the validity of The impugned order'éétfed 30.01.2008 (Annexm‘e PIE), whereby services of the petitioner was tenn'mated on account of the estataiished fact that the petitioner remained abs ent for a iong period. Shri Baeg, ieamed counsei appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact of the petitioner being absent from November, 2002 till termination order was passed. However; he submits that the petitioner was not weii and acoordingiy, he has submitted medica3 repoit before this Court alongwitii tee petitioai. Thus, the impugned order passed ‘oy the aethorities is vitiated as the authorities have not taken into eniisideration the iiiiiess o‘i‘the petitiooer. Shri Biiaduri, iearned E’aeei Lawyer for the State/respondent, per contra, submits that the petitioner, without any permission remained absent sinee November. 2002 tiil the order of termination was passed. The a ‘ respondent authorities have served several show-cause-notices dated 1 V )Ix é) 03.11.2004, 28.03.2005. 07.02.2006. 30.06.2006. 14.07.2006, 01.09.2007 and 13.11.2007 (Anaemia R/l coiiy.) Thereafter, mikes were pubiisheé in the neWspapers on 02.01.2008, 04.01.2008 and 21.0.2008 {Armexum R12 c0§1y.). I)espite servimg of show-cause-notices anci pubiicatmn in Ewe newsinagmrs, the petitiozaer did not attend ihe office. The petitiener has also not made any representation in response to tee show-cause~notices sewed upon him and newspaper pubHcatieas, {ime to time. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the pai‘ties, perused the pleadings and documents appeilded {harem 1i is evic1ent thai the princéyes ofnatm‘a! justice has 'heen comptied with iii the present case. Seve‘cai show-cause-notiees were served on the petitioriet‘. Evert. pubtieation of notice in the newspaper wa‘; made. The pet§tiot1er, Without explanatien 0r any justification, faiEed to respond to the notices ami (its? not atteuci the of’IEce. Tate oetitioner remained. absent from Novemtter 2002 tit? the impugnedwrder was passed. It is tinther estab‘xtsheé “mat the petitioner has fated for the fast time eartain medical repotts which cartnot be considered at this stage. If the petitioner was actually unwell or ill, he ought to have produced these ceititicates alongwith his representation or reply to the several sllow- cause-notices and publication in the newspaper. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no interference is warranted. The order impugned is proper and legal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order asto costs. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge f;er z . ”.)v y