Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Sai Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2008
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) No. 1203 of 2008
Suresh Sai Bhagat
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh
2. The Excise Collector
3. The Assistant Excise Commissioner
...Respondents
! Shri M.K.Baeg, Advocate for the petitioner.
^ Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondents.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Dated:03/07/2008 : Judgement ORAL ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (Passed on 03rd day of July, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.
1. This petition challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P/1), whereby services of the petitioner was terminated on account of the established fact that the petitioner remained absent for a long period.
2. Shri Baeg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute the fact of the petitioner being absent from November, 2002 till termination order was passed. However, he submits that the petitioner was not well and accordingly, he has submitted medical report before this Court alongwith the petition. Thus, the impugned order passed by the authorities is vitiated as the authorities have not taken into consideration the illness of the petitioner.
3. Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, per contra, submits that the petitioner, without any permission remained absent since November, 2002 till the order of termination was passed. The respondent authorities have served several show-cause-notices dated 03.11.2004, 28.03.2005, 07.02.2006, 30.06.2006, 14.07.2006, 01.09.2007 and 13.11.2007 (Annexure R/1 colly.). Thereafter, notices were published in the newspapers on 02.01.2008, 04.01.2008 and 21.0.2008 (Annexure R/2 colly.). Despite serving of show-cause-notices and publication in the newspapers, the petitioner did not attend the office. The petitioner has also not made any representation in response to the show-cause-notices served upon him and newspaper publications, time to time.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the principles of natural justice has been complied with in the present case. Several show-cause- notices were served on the petitioner. Even, publication of notice in the newspaper was made. The petitioner, without explanation or any justification, failed to respond to the notices and did not attend the office. The petitioner remained absent accordingly from November 2002 till the impugned order was passed.
5. It is further established that the petitioner has filed for the first time certain medical reports which cannot be considered at this stage. If the petitioner was actually unwell or ill, he ought to have produced these certificates alongwith his representation or reply to the several show- cause-notices and publication in the newspaper.
6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no interference is warranted. The order impugned is proper and legal.
7. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No order asto costs.
JUDGE