CJ- ( ^> ^ THEtmeHGOURTOFCHHATnSGAKHATBILASPNR. j WmtPEn'ITIONfSl N0. ^ ^ETITIONER Dhiraj Malik.S/o LateiR.P.S. Malik, aged about 32 .years, Occupation Fishries Inspecfor Block Baloda, District janjgir Cfaampa C.G. ^y^ JggSPQNDENTS VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the .Secretary Agriculture Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, KL;:i • ./tC^ y • .\'l.^fy F^shries Raipur ? ;;i.'^*X)>''l:^'.^<y. ! '^--".--~---~'----:' 1:' , i'^'L<'"':; . •:'-Q't'~ .„,.,; „• .. : .„ .. ..' .- . ' ^- Telibandha , Near Railway crossing RaipurC.G. », 3. AssistantDirector, Fishries, Janjgir, District Janjgir ChampaC.G. , 4. Chief Executive .officer' Janpad Panchayat baloda, District janjgir {ll.l' ; - ,, ' . Champa C.G.: : ,, • : • BJWKITPEnTnONUNDERARTICLE2260FTHECpNST!TUTI£)NjQP III tNGlA FOR ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRrTIN THE'NATURE OF Ri^M^I '': "':;:-^^ '•• • ^' •! '::'' :-:.;:'::;::: : • :. 11:.': || MiANBAMUS/CERTIOKARI ETC. OR DIRECTION/QRDER IN THE. •^ Kl yiKENATUREEyrC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5677 OF 2007 PETITIONER Dhiraj Malik Versus RESPONDENTS 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 Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. None for the respondent No.4, despite service of notice. ORDER (ORAU (Psssed on this 1st day ofApril, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22-2-2007 (Annexure - P/l) whereby the service period of the petitioner from 1-11-2006 to 21-2-2007 has been treated as "Leave Without Pay" (for short "LWP") and also to the undated order (Annexure - P/2). 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Balod. By order dated 1-8-2006 (Annexure- P/5), the petitioner was given the additional responsibility to assist in the office of Assistant Director (Fisheries), Janjgir for five ^- days in a week. It is further stated that the petitioner was not permitted to put his signature in the attendance register, as is evident from the application dated 07-08-2006 to the Assistant Director (Fisheries) Janjgir. No action was thereafter taken on his application. The petitioner during the subjected period i.e. from 1-11-2006 to 21-2-2007 was in his duty and the impugned order has been wrongly passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Despite service of notice, the respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear before this Court. 4. 6. ^- 7. Respondents no. 1 to 3/State in its return clearly stated that the return is being filed on the basis of information received from the respondent no. 4, as the petitioner was posted under the control of the respondent no.4. It is further submitted that no document has been produced to establish that the petitioner was on duty any where, thus the impugned order is just and proper. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It appears that on the apptication dated 7-8-2006, no order has been passed. No document has been produced by the petitioner as well as the respondents to establish that, in fact, the petitioner was absent during the subjected period. The respondent no.4 has also not come forward with an explanation or any reply in response to the notice of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before condemning the petitioner by treating the period from 1-11-2006 to 21-2-2007 as L.W.P. is bad. Accordingly the order dated 22-2-2007 (Annexure-P/1) and the undated order (Annexure-P/2) are quashed. However in the facts situation of the case, the Assistant Director (Fisheries) is granted liberty to examine the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law and on its own merits. tn the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agiiifaotii Judge