[2025:RJ-JP:7073-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 529/2023 Avdhesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 116, Krishna Vihar Colony, Kunadi, Near Chungi Naka, Kota (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Hathibhata Power House, Ajmer. 2. Secretary, Administration Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Hathibhata Power House, Ajmer. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 555/2023 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Hathibhata Power House, Ajmer. 2. Secretary, Administration, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Hathibhata Power House, Ajmer. ----Appellants Versus Avdhesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Virendra Kumar Choudhary, House No. 116, Krishna Vihar Colony, Kunadi, Near Chungi Naka, Kota. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma Mr. A. Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamalesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/02/2025 In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 529/2023:- [2025:RJ-JP:7073-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-529/2023] This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10381/2010, while quashing the termination order dated 23.07.2009 given further directions to the respondents to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in para 3 of the appointment order dated 04.01.2008 and further directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Technical Helper (Electrical) on probation vide order dated 04.01.2008 for a period of two years. The appellant seeks short extension for joining his duty which was allowed by the respondents, thereafter, the appellant has joined his duties on 03.02.2008, however, after working for few days i.e. upto 14.02.2008, he remained absent from his duty without informing the respondents and ultimately his service was terminated by the respondents vide order dated 23.07.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application was filed before the respondents stating therein that due to illness, the appellant was enable to join his duty and applied for granting of leave. Learned counsel further submits that once the order of termination has been set aside by the learned Single Judge then he should have been reinstated by the respondents. In support of his contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by learned Apex Court in the case of Anantdeep Singh Vs. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & [2025:RJ-JP:7073-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-529/2023] Anr (Misc. Application No.267 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No.3082 of 2022) decided on 06.09.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and submits that the order was not only set aside by the learned Single Judge, however, further directions were given to the respondents to comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in para 3 of the order 04.01.2008 i.e. appointment order and further directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Learned counsel further submits that it is a case of abandonment of duty as the appellant has failed to submit any application and as per their official record with regard to his illness. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This appeal filed on behalf of appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons: firstly, the appellant was appointed on probation and he worked with the respondents only for ten days and remained absent from his duty without informing the respondents; secondly, the appellant failed to submit any document in support of his illness either before the Department or even before the learned Single Judge, therefore the action taken by the respondents in terminating the services of such in- disciplined employee cannot be said to be faulty, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly pass the order, in given direction to the respondents to act in accordance with terms and conditions of appointment order. [2025:RJ-JP:7073-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-529/2023] In that view of the matter, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant is dismissed. In D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 555/2023:- This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants- Department challenging the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16381/2010. In view of the order passed today in connected D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.529/2023 on 18.02.2025, We find that no case is made out for interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in view of the order passed in connected D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.529/2023. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J ashu /82-83