1 2025:CGHC:54197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1673 of 2023 Sanjay Pandey S/o Shri M.K. Pandey Aged About 47 Years (Now Terminated), Presently R/o Village Atrauli, P.O. Bihra, Via J. P. Nagar, District : Rewa, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Work Department, North Block Sector 19, Nirman Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Circle No. 2, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.11.2025 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief(s):- “1] That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned orders dated 19-10-2022 (Annexure P-1) & 31-01-2020 (Annexure P-2). YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.11 19:01:29 +0530 2 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions & the respondent authorities may kindly be consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Subsistence Allowance from 06.01.2016 to 30.01.2020 along with the interest. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Engineer (Civil) under the PWD (Male) category vide order dated 21.05.2008 and joined service on 20.05.2008. He was selected under the Person with Disabilities (PWD) quota and the relevant medical certificates are on record. Soon after joining, the petitioner’s father met with a major road accident, went into coma and remained in a vegetative condition, due to which the petitioner, being the only person available, was compelled to take care of him. Consequently, the petitioner sought leave from time to time and submitted several applications supported by medical documents. The department, however, issued reminders requiring him to rejoin duty, but due to unavoidable family circumstances, the petitioner could not resume his duties. 3. As a result, the petitioner remained absent from 2008 till 06.01.2016. On that date, he reported for duty and submitted his joining letter, but was immediately placed under suspension, and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 28.04.2016. 3 The enquiry report dated 16.10.2018 held the charges proved, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Dissatisfied with the explanation, the Chief Engineer passed the order dated 31.01.2020 terminating his services. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was also rejected on 19.10.2022, thereby affirming the order of termination. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. It is contended that the petitioner, who was appointed as Deputy Engineer (Civil) under the PWD (Person with Disabilities) quota, could not continue in service owing to exceptional and compelling circumstances beyond his control, as his father had suffered a major road accident, went into a vegetative state, and required continuous care. Despite the petitioner informing the department from time to time and seeking leave supported by medical documents, he was unable to rejoin duty until 06.01.2016. 5. Learned counsel further submits that on the very date of joining, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against him, during which no subsistence allowance was paid. It is argued that non-payment of subsistence allowance struck at the petitioner’s right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prevented him from effectively defending himself in the enquiry. 4 6. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, (1993) 3 SCC 679 and Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 7 SCC 90 as well as the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Jaideep Das vs. NTPC Ltd. in WPS No.2560/2013 to contend that subsistence allowance is a fundamental and enforceable right and its denial amounts to an inhuman act akin to “slow poisoning”. Learned counsel further submits that the departmental enquiry suffers from grave procedural irregularities, as not a single material witness was examined to establish the allegations, and therefore the finding of guilt is unsustainable. It is urged that the termination order dated 31.01.2020, affirmed in appeal on 19.10.2022, is illegal, erroneous and contrary to settled law, warranting interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the action of the respondent authorities is strictly in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is contended that the petitioner, after joining the post of Deputy Engineer on 20.05.2008, remained absent from duty without authorization for an uninterrupted period of nearly 7½ years, despite repeated reminders issued by the department. The petitioner neither reported back to duty nor sought regularization of such an extraordinary and prolonged absence in accordance with service rules. 5 8. Learned State counsel further submits that the plea of family hardship cannot justify continuous unauthorized absence for several years, particularly when the petitioner failed to maintain discipline expected of a government servant. It is further submitted that upon his rejoining on 06.01.2016, the petitioner was rightly placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated following due procedure. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the petitioner was given full opportunity to participate, submit his defence, and respond to the findings. The enquiry report established the charges of unauthorized absence as fully proved, and after considering the petitioner’s reply, the competent authority imposed the penalty of termination, which is proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Learned State counsel submits that the appellate authority, upon independent consideration, has upheld the said punishment. It is, therefore, argued that the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. It 6 stands admitted that the petitioner remained absent from duty for an extraordinarily long period of nearly 7½ years, despite repeated reminders issued by the department. The explanation furnished by the petitioner does not satisfactorily justify such prolonged unauthorized absence, nor has he established that the same was ever regularized in accordance with the applicable service rules. 11. The materials placed on record further reveal that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Adequate and reasonable opportunity was extended to the petitioner at every stage of the proceedings. The enquiry report, holding the charges proved, was duly supplied to him, and his reply was considered by the competent authority before passing the order of termination. The appellate authority too independently examined the matter and found no irregularity warranting interference. This Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice, nor any procedural illegality that would vitiate the enquiry. 12. The plea of non-payment of subsistence allowance, though pressed, has not been supported by any material to demonstrate real prejudice or impairment of the petitioner’s ability to participate in the enquiry. In the facts of the present case, such contention does not, by itself, render the enquiry invalid. Given the gravity of misconduct arising from continuous unauthorized absence for several years, the punishment imposed cannot be held to be 7 disproportionate. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh