@ Single Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘I‘IseARH AT BILAsPuR (ca) w. P. (5)No. “37W of 2011 2. ’ Superinfending Engineer (E & M), Public Works Department Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. / Superintending Engineer (E & M), Public Works Depar’rmem‘, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.) 4. "Execuiive Engineer, Public Works Deparimeni, Division—I, Bilaspur, Districf—Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONER : Vishnu singh, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Umed Singh, working as Mechanical Helper, under Superintending Engineer (E & M), {2’0\\ Public Works Department Bilaspur k (C.G.) § VERsus RESPONDENTs :1. Sfafe of Chhatfisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Manfralaya, Raipur (CG‘) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1884 OF 2011 PETITIONER Vishnu Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench '. Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushii Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State. RESPONDENTS ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 08‘“ day of April, 201 1) Chaiienge ‘in this petition is to the order dated 08.09.2009 (Annexure P—9), whereby the petitioner, being Mechanical Assistant, was dismissed from service. The indisputable facts, as projected, by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Helper on the pay- scale of Rs.‘ 125—900/— per month. Thereafter, he has been working continuously. Due to unavoidable reasons i.e. sudden demise of his wife, the petitioner remained absent without leave. Thereafter, he returned back to his duty and made an application for proper sanction of his long leave. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D., by his communication dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P—3) wrote to the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., seeking instruction on the ground that the petitioner in his application has stated that he remained absent for a long period i.e. since 01.04.1989 till 08.04.2007, on account of the death of his wife to take care of his small children and reappeared on 09.04.2007 to join the service, as is evident from Annexure P-5. @ The Superintending Engineer, by communication dated 26.03.2007 (Annexure P—4) directed the Executive Engineer to take steps at his end. ‘Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner remained absent on account of unavoidable circumstances, so that the order of the dismissai may be quashed, as the petitioner has also submitted a certificate issued on 11.05.2008 by Sarpanch of the. viilage, wherein; it was clearly indicated that the petitioner remained in the village and was looking after his family members and working in the agricultural field and elsewhere for earning his resources. Even, the Superintending Engineer has written to the Chief Engineer that the petitioner remained absent for 18 years and 8 days as ‘dies-non’. The Chief Engineer, in turn, by communication dated 09.03.2009 forwarded the same to the Engineer-in-Chief for appropriate action The Engineer-in-Chief after having considered all the facts dismissed the petitioner from servrce On perusal of the documents it is clear that the petitioner has not denied the fact of absence for the period of 18 years and 8 days from 01.04.1989 to 08.04.2007. The petitioner has also not sought any permission and subsequently all of a sudden, he appeared to join the post with a certificate issued by Sarpanch, for grant of leave. A show cause notice with charge sheet was issued on 18.08.2010 (Annexure P—11) to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply admitting his guilt and prayed for, reinstatement. Thus, the principle of natural justice has been s @ complied with, and as such, impugned order cannot be held as unjust, improper and illegal. The petitioner responded to the notice on 29.08.2010 (Annexure P-12) Once the petitioner has accepted his misconduct and admitted that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 01.04.1989 to 08.04.2007, holding of a proper departmental enquiry would be a mere formalities. Even othenlvise, this is not a contention of the petitioner that before passing of the impugned order of dismissal, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, and having regard to, $ the facts of the case that the petitioner remained for 18 years and 8 days out of service unauthorisedly without permission of the authorities, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be held as vitiated, as the same is legal and proper warranting no interference. As a result of which, the petition is dismissed. .,,d"/M\ Sd/4 Satish K. Agnihotri We. W Judge