1 2026:CGHC:4567-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 90 of 2026 Sanjay Pandey S/o Shri M.K. Pandey Aged About 49 Years (Now Termi- nated), Presently R/o Village Atrauli, P.O. Bihra, Via J.P. Nagar, District- Rewa, Madhya Pradesh ... Appellant 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 For Appellant : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 28.01.2026 1 Heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No.02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the instant appeal. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2 For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2026 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3 This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 06.11.2025 (Sanjay Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1673 of 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4 Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that 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. As a result, the petitioner remained absent from 2008 till 06.01.2016. On that date, he reported for duty and submitted 3 his joining letter, but was immediately placed under suspension, and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 28.04.2016. 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 petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court being WPS No. 1673 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.11.2025. Hence, this appeal. 5 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the punishment of termination imposed upon the appellant is grossly disproportionate to the charges alleged. The appellant’s absence from duty was neither willful nor contumacious but was occasioned by compelling family circumstances, namely the serious medical condition of his father, who was in a vegetative state, for which the appellant was the sole caregiver. He further submits that the appellant had duly informed the respondent authorities and submitted repeated leave applications supported by medical documents; however, no decision was taken or communicated on the same. In the absence of any memo or finding of unauthorized absence, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is vitiated. He also submits that the appellant had bonafidely admitted the charges, which warranted a 4 liberal and humane consideration, particularly when there were no allegations of corruption, moral turpitude, or misappropriation. He contends that despite the appellant reporting for duty on 06.01.2016, he was arbitrarily placed under suspension on the same day, reflecting a predetermined approach to terminate his services. The appellant was not paid any subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension from 06.01.2016 to 30.01.2020, thereby rendering the disciplinary proceedings unfair, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also contends that it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Another reported in (1993) 3 SCC 679 and Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 90 that payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of right and essential for a fair enquiry. In these circumstances, the impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory, and shocks the conscience, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 6 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity warranting interference. He further submits that the appellant remained absent from duty for a prolonged and unauthorized period without obtaining prior sanction of leave, thereby violating the service rules. Mere submission of 5 applications does not confer a right to remain absent, particularly when the appellant failed to rejoin duty within a reasonable time. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated strictly in accordance with law after due opportunity was afforded to the appellant. The appellant admitted the charges, and therefore cannot now seek to re-agitate factual issues or plead sympathy to dilute the punishment imposed. It is further submitted that absence on account of personal or family difficulty, howsoever sympathetic, does not justify continued non-attendance in a disciplined service. The punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, especially considering the prolonged absence and the appellant’s failure to regularize the same. The contention regarding subsistence allowance is misconceived, as no prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the appellant in participating in the enquiry. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and law, and no case is made out for interference in exercise of appellate or writ jurisdiction. The appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed. 7 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. The material on record clearly establishes that the appellant remained absent from duty for a prolonged period without obtaining prior sanction of leave, in violation of the applicable service rules. Mere submission of leave applications, without approval, does not confer any legal 6 right to remain absent. The appellant admitted the charges during the disciplinary proceedings, and therefore the findings of misconduct cannot now be assailed. The contention that the punishment of termination is disproportionate cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. Prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes a serious misconduct, and the disciplinary authority, upon due consideration, imposed the penalty in accordance with law. The plea relating to non-payment of subsistence allowance has also been duly examined by the learned Single Judge and no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the appellant so as to vitiate the enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted after affording adequate opportunity, and no violation of principles of natural justice or Article 21 of the Constitution of India is made out. 8 In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra