1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6706 of 2018 1 - Komal Ram S/o Durangu Ram Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Jamgaon, Tahsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Work Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Raipur Zone, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Engineer In Chief Public Work Department North Block Sector- 19, Nirman Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Durg Circle, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgah., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer Works Department Balod Division Balod, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued writ /appropriate in the nature of mandamus 2 and set aside the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 4 grant monetary benefit including retiral benefit in favour of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think in proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the father of the petitioner was appointed to the post of Time Keeper on 23.11.1972 at Sub-Division, Balod, Public Works Department (C.G.). He would further submit that the father of the petitioner namely, late Krishna Ram Bhista remained absent from duties from 01.04.1988 to 03.12.1992. He would also submit that thereafter, the father of the petitioner approached the authorities to join the services but he was not permitted and on 12.01.2007, an order was passed by respondent No.5/the Executive Engineer whereby he was removed from services on the ground that he remained absent from services for more than 4 years. He would contend that his services were terminated from retrospective effect, particularly with effect from 30.01.1999. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred before the Superintendent Engineer, which was dismissed by the said authority vide order dated 31.05.2018. He would also contend that respondent No.4/the Superintendent Engineer in its order has observed that no inquiry was conducted according to the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules of 1966’) and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the late Krishna Ram Bhista. He would argue that the father of the petitioner was a regular employee under the respondents and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have conducted an inquiry according to the applicable service Rules. He would further argue that the father of the petitioner died on 02.04.2016. He would pray to allow this petition. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kesharwani. He would submit that the father of the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duties from 01.04.1988 to 03.12.1992. He would further submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.01.1989 but no response was given. He would contend that when the father of the petitioner failed to join services, a decision was taken by the competent authority to pass an order of removal from services. He would further contend that the decision was taken by respondent No.5 according to the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. He would also contend that the order passed by respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 has been affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.4. He would submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was a regular and permanent employee posted in the post of Time Keeper under the respondents. He was appointed on 23.11.1972. He remained absent from duties from 01.04.1988 to 03.12.1992. Thereafter, he approached the respondent authorities but he was not permitted to join the services. After 15 years, an order was passed by respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 whereby the father of the petitioner was removed from services with effect from 30.01.1999. An appeal was preferred by the father of the petitioner before the Superintendent Engineer and it was also dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2018. 6. A perusal of the documents filed by the respective Advocates would show that no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was afforded 4 to the father of the petitioner. As the father of the petitioner was a regular employee working under the respondents, the respondents were under an obligation to conduct an inquiry according to the provisions of the Rules of 1966. 7. Mr. Bajpayee argued that the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner were not known and no response was given to the notice issued to the father of the petitioner dated 03.01.1989, therefore, the department proceeded according to the proviso appended to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India which states that where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. 8. The contention made by Mr. Bajpayee cannot be accepted. 9. It is not a case of the respondent authorities that the whereabouts of the father of the petitioner were not known. It appears that after 03.01.1989, he was never served with any notice. In the year 1993, the father of the petitioner approached the respondent authorities to join his services but he was not permitted and without the issuance of a show cause notice and the service of article of charge, the order was passed by respondent No.5 on 12.01.2007. 10. The father of the petitioner was protected according to the provisions of Article 311(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India which states that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of a State or holds a civil post shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and such a person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of 5 being heard in respect of those charges. 11. 11. As the father of the petitioner was a regular Government servant, the respondent authorities were under an obligation to initiate a departmental inquiry according to the provisions of the Rules of 1966. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the order passed by respondent No.5 dated 12.01.2007 and affirmed by respondent No.4 dated 31.05.2018 are hereby quashed. 13. The father of the petitioner, though he is no more, would be entitled to the salary from January, 1993 till the date of his retirement with all consequential benefits. From 01.04.1988 till 03.12.1992, he remained absent from duties, therefore, the authority would be at liberty to take a decision with regard to the period of absence. 14. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha