BEFOREHON'BLEHIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR . W^P.(S)No. J-SOG /2Q09 -.- PETITIONER ^>^ ^ -,9S'? ^^' ^w^s^ •.y y^!v'c'^<i^ ^^ L\u RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1).' 2) 2) 4) 5) 6) Surendra Singh S/o.- Ram Nihore Singh, Aged about 52 years, R/o.- Qr. No. H/31,Police Line, Rajnandgaon District-RajnanGlgaon (C;G.) State ofGhhattisgarh ThrQugh-Secretary^^ .Deparfment bf H6 D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Superintendeht of Police, District- Rajnanclgaon(C.G.) The Commissioner Department of TranspQrt ^ R.T.O. OfficerRaipur(C.G,) Assistant Commissioner, DepaFtment of Transport , Raipur(C.G.) . Regional TraHspdrt Officer, Jagdatpur, District Bastar (G.G.) : • :: Additional Regional Transport Officer,^Rajnanclgapn (C.G.) Officer, District Road Transport Mahasarriund IVIahasamund (C.G.) Director General of Police, Gh-hattisgarh, Raipur(C.G.), 9) Inspector General of Police, Raipur(G.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA. ^^, MIGHGOURTOFeHMATTlSGARH:BILASPUR ARf ;t. ^. A" WRIT PETITION (S) N0.15000F 2009 SurendraSingh Versus Stateof Chhattisgarh and Others :E.'RI' flS Post for pronounCemsnt of the judgment and Order on •^ayofDecember, 2009 ""•^-c Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURTOFGHHATTISGARH;BII..ASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1500 OF 2009 Surendra Singh Versus State of Chhaftisgarh & Others (Writ petition underArtiele 226 ofthe Constitutibn of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present- ShriAnoopMazumdar.Advocateforthepetitioner. • Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel LawyerfortheState. ORDER (Passedonthis '7'davofD6cember,2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direetion ito the respondents to pass specific order under Rule 23 (4) (a) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 (for short "the Rules, 1977")on the joining report dated 5-9-2007. 2. Initially, the petitioner prays fo.r fhe following reliefs : "10.1) That, the respondentNo.6 bedirected tb pass requisite specific order under Leave Rule 23 (4) (a) 6n the joining report dt. 5/9/07 Annexure P/2. pending with him a copy thereQfto the petitioner and the respondent No.8; 10.2) The respCindent No;8 be directed to serve the transfer order Annexure P/3 on the petitioner so thaf Me may be able to join his duty.at the place of his transfer. 10.3) That respondents be brdered reconstruct the service book of the petitiorier within limited tiffle frame and E83 BB SS ;£:ai!±i to pay the arrgars of salary of fhe petitioner from 23/6/07 till date and onwards togetherwith all the increments duetilldate. 10.4) That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleasedto pass any Qrder or issue any suitable writ/order directions as the Hon'ble CDurt rnay^ deeni fit ynder the circumstances ofthe case." On 22-4-2009 by an application (I.A.No.2) for amendment, the petitioner sought for deletion of prayer clauses 10.2 and 10.3, which was ordered on 22-4-2009. Theindisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that by order dated 5-6-2007 (Annexure - P/3) the petitioner was sent back tb his parent department i.e. Police Department from the deputation department i.e. Transport Department. In thesaid order the place 6f joining of the petitioner was specified as District Dantewada. Except the petitioner herein all other 11 persons have joined their respective places. Case of the petitioner is that except the petitioner all others were served with the copy of order dated 5-6-2007 and accordingly they joined their respective plaGes. The petitioner could not join on account of non-service of the order. Earlier the petitionerpreferred a petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No.5148 6f 2008 (Surendra Singh v. State of Chhattigarh and Others) wherein on the basis of submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General that a copy of the transfer order would be given to the petitioner withih a pgriod ofoneweek ahdthereafter appropriate action would be taken for reconstructiQn of thg service book ofthe petitioner, expeditiously.the writ petition was disposed of ^&St slSf.S!g?S,SSSffSsS^SSS3iS:SS;^^^^^ 9. byorderdated 15-9-2008 (Annexure—P/1). Accordingly, copy of the order dated 13-10-2008 (Annexure- R/1) alorig wifh order dated 5-6-2007 andtheeariier notice dated -10-5-2008 (Annexure - R/3) was served onthe petitioner on 16-10-2008, again. Despite service of order pf repatriation dated 5-6-2007, the petitioner failed to join the new place pf posting on the ground that since no order uhder Rule 23 (4) (a) (b) ofthe Rules, 1977 has been passed, the petitioner cannot join the new place pf posting at Danfewada. The notice of transfer ought t6 have been issued by the respondents No.3, 5and 6not by the respondentNo.2/ Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon. Thus, the notice dated 13-10-2008 accompanied by theorder dated 5-9-2007 isnpt issuedbya Competeht authority. On the other hand, leamed Ggiunsel appearing for the'-'State would submit thatin the order pf repatriation ,dated 5-6-2007 itself the place of posting i.e. District Dantewada of the petitioner was clearly mentioned. The petitioner was duly served and he failed to comply with the orders. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the.parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended theretp. It is evident that pursuant to the prder dated 15-9-2008 passed by this Coyrtin W.P. (S) No.5148 of 2008 pne mQre notice alongwith the orderdated 5-6-2007 and Ihe earlier notice dated 10-5-2008 was •" served on thepetitioneron 16-10-2008. Despite service of notice and transfer order, the petitionerjgmained unauthorisedly absent without joining the new place of posting i.e. District Dantewada. It is a clear case of insubordination and dereliction of-duties. • IS,' itair.i H??a an"" ..^i^ Sin 10. Ru[e23oftheRules,1977providesaSunder: "23. Return from leave.—(1)A Government servant on leave shall not return to duty before the expiry of the period of teave granted to him unless he is permitted to doso bythe authority which granted him teave. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained insub-ryle (1), a Govemment Servarit on leave preparatory to retirement shall be precluded from returning tp duty, save with the consent of the authorit'y competent tb appointhim to the post from which he proceeded on leave preparatDry fo retirernent. (3) A Government servant who has taken leave bn medical certificate may not return to duty until he has produced a medical certificate of fitness in Form 4. . (4) (a) A Government servant returning frpm leave is not entitled, in the absence ofspecific orders to that effect, fo resume as a matter ofcoursethe post which he held before goihg 6n leave. (b) Such Govemment servant shall report his returntodutytbtheauttioritywhiehgrantedhimleave or to the authority, if any, specified in the order 'granting hirri'leav&ancl await'Orders. '. , Note.—AGovemment sei-vaht whlo has been sufferingfrom tubigreulbsis maybe'allbwedtQresume duty on the basis of fifness certificate which recommends right work for him." 11. Rule 23 (4) 6f the Rules, 1977 is applicable only in case an employee is on leave. Being "on leave" means the leavewith permission ofthe competent superior authority. In the case on hand, the petitioner /' remained absent from his duties without any teave and, as such, the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules, 1977are not applicable to the case of the present petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is trying to find out excuses on one orothergroundstoavoidjoining the new AB. . _ .. ,_. .. 1 _ . ! place of posting at District Dantewada. 12. The contention of the petitioner that the order should have been passed by the Transport Department is withoutany basis, as the initial order of repatriation dated 5-6-2007 was passed by the \,. 13. <. 14. Gowri competent authority repatriating back the ' petitioner from the deputation department i.e Transport Department to the parent department i.e. Police Department. The place of posting at District Dantewada was also specified. Having regard to the overall conduct ofthe petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Pursuant to the order dated 5-6-2007 passed by the respondent authorities allother 11 employees have joined their respective places. The petitioner alone remained unauthorizedly absent in order to avoid joining at District Dantewada on one or otherexcuse for the last more than two years. It appears that the conduct of the petitioner is not prQper, as initially the petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No.5148 of 2008, fbr the same relief. Second-timenDtice was served purSuant to the order dated 15-9-2008 passed by this Court in the first writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No.5148 of 2008, the petitioner has attempted to file second writ petition almost on the same grounds. The aforesaid conduct ofthepetitionerthroughoutbycomingto this Gourttimeand again without any basisamounts to misuse ofjudicial process. The respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriatesteps against the petitioner in accordance with law. tn the result, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost quantified to be Rs.3,500/-. .••'t^t^V^-'- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge iFtTlTl*" ifiWT?an*3a^'^^**fl»