1 2025:CGHC:39399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10147 of 2019 1 - Umrao Singh Thakur S/o Malik Singh Thakur Aged About 37 Years R/o Jindhi, Police Station Bhimkhoj, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General Jail Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Jail Superintendent Central Jail Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 07/08/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Jail Superintendent, RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.08.11 18:01:14 +0530 2 Central Jail, Ambikapur (CG), whereby service of the petitioner was terminated. 3. Facts of the case, as projected by petitioner, are that, in the year 2009, the petitioner was appointed on the regular post of Jail Prahari/Warder in Central Jail, Ambikapur. He successfully completed his probation period, and thereafter, his employment was regularized. In the year 2016, he went on leave from 22.11.2016 to 26.11.2016. However, he did not join his duties despite issuance of several notices, which, according to the petitioner, were not served upon him. Subsequently, respondent No.3 terminated the petitioner’s service vide impugned order. The petitioner was removed from service without conducting any departmental enquiry proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has filed instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and quash the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure-P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner had served the respondent department for more than 10 years and he was a regular employee, despite that, his service was terminated without conducting any departmental enquiry, which is violative of Article 311 3 (2) of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that even if the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent on various occasions, an appropriate order with regard to dies non could have been passed, but only on the ground of unauthorized absence, and that too, without conducting departmental enquiry, his service could not have been terminated. Hence, he prays that the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set aside. 5. The State has filed its reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that, though the petitioner had served for about 9 years in Central Jail, Ambikapur as Jail Prahari/Warder, but he was a habitual absentee. On around four occasions, despite being granted leave, the petitioner did not join his duties after completion of the leave period. Each time, notices were sent to him, despite that, his conduct did not improve. In the year 2016, he went on leave for five days i.e. from 22.11.2016 to 26.11.2016, as such, he ought to have joined service on 27.11.2016, but neither he joined his service nor responded to three notices issued to him, therefore, respondent No.3 was compelled to pass the impugned order. However, he admitted during course of the argument that no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, though show cause notices were issued to him. Learned State counsel further submitted that, since petitioner was habitual absentee, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, hence, this petition is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) shows that on about four occasions, the petitioner did not join his service after completion of 4 sanctioned leave and remained unauthorizedly absent for more than eight months, six days and six months respectively on three occasions. Lastly, he went on leave from 22.11.2016 to 26.11.2016, as such, he ought to have joined on 27.11.2016, but he did not join his service. Respondent authorities sent three notices dated 02.02.2017, 04.08.2017 and 13.09.2017, but the same were not responded by the petitioner. 7.1 In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those notices were never served upon the petitioner, as he was not residing at the address to which the notices were sent, therefore, he could not reply to the same. In this regard, learned State counsel again submits that the notices were sent to the address mentioned in the petitioner’s service book and he never intimidated change of address. 8. Ground for removal of the petitioner from service is that he remained unauthorizedly absent on three occasions. Lastly, in the year 2016, when he went on leave, he did not join his service thereafter. 9. Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1977 (for short "the Rules 1977") particularly Rule 24 thereof makes provision regarding absence after expiry of leave. 10. Sub-rule (1) Rule 24 of the Rules, 1977 provides that unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. Sub-rule (2) provides that willful 5 absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. 11. In the case in hand, the petitioner unauthorizedly remained absent three times for more than eight months, six days and six months respectively after granting him leave. In the year 2016, after getting/granting of five days’ leave, he did not present in his duty from 27.11.2016 i.e. after expiry of sanctioned leave, however, without conducting departmental enquiry, in view of the procedure laid down under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “the Rules, 1966"), the respondents have straightaway passed the impugned order declaring him absentee without passing any order of dies non for the period, in which, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. 12. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the safeguard and protection guaranteed to the Government servant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which provides as under:- “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State – (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) No such person as aforesaid shall 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 being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed : Provided further that this clause shall not apply - 6 (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) 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; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. ” 13. Article 311 basically aims at providing security of tenure to Government servants and guarantees constitutional protection to persons employed in civil capacities under Union and States against arbitrary dismissal, removal and reduction in rank. The protection is two fold - (a) against removal or dismissal by an authority subordinate to that by which employee was appointed, and (b) against dismissal, removal and reduction in rank without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in an enquiry without complying with the principles of natural justice. 14. In the opinion of this Court, an order adverse to the Government servant, who has remained willfully absent after expiry of leave cannot be passed without initiating any disciplinary proceeding, as provided under Rule 24 (2) of the Rules, 1977. While holding, so this Court would take assistance of the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ali Hussian (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (1984 JLJ 67) and Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others {(2007) 3 MPLJ 525}. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) is found to be against the law and Rules, 1966 as well 7 as the Rules, 1977. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. Consequence shall follow. Respondent No.3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on his service. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent authorities to initiate departmental enquiry and proceed to take proper action against the petitioner in pursuance of unauthorized absence of him for the said period, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 16. As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated here- in-above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 17. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar