CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 09 CHH CK 0092

Md. Raihaan vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 6 September 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 5141 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 329 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner now having approached therespondent authorities for joining, the same is not being provided to him.

2.

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with an order of appointment on 15.2.2012 on the basis of which the petitioner reported for duty on 28.2.2012. After joining duties from the next day, the petitioner remained absent from duty with effect from 2.3.2012 onwards, the petitioner had worked only on 28.2.2012 and 1.3.2012.

3.

According to the petitioner, he under compelling circumstances was not in a position to report for duty and that finally he reported for duty on 29.1.2016 by giving a letter to the respondents in this regard which till date has not been accepted by the respondents.

4.

Perusal of the documents enclosed along with the reply would show that the respondents on 18.3.2013 had issued a letter to the petitioner seeking explanation for his long continuous unauthorized absence and failing which the respondents would initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. But, no further development has taken place on the disciplinary proceeding neither did the petitioner give any reply to the said notice, Annexure R-2/3.

5.

Given the fact, it appears that no final order has been passed so far as the service of the petitioner is concerned. Unless the service of the petitioner has been terminated, for all practical purpose, he continues to be on the rolls of respondent as an employee. Under the circumstances, the petitioner would have to be given joining by the respondents however for the intervening period of unauthorized absence they would have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceeding as has been envisaged vide Annexure R-2/3, dated 18.3.2013. Reserving the right of the respondents to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceeding for the unauthorized absence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of joining immediately.

6.

The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.