Sunil Jain vs CG State Warehousing Corporation

Heard Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5097 of 2010 (Sunil Jain v. CG State Warehousing Corporation & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the respondent No. 2, by which respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 27.07.2009 by which respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner from service of the Corporation in exercise of power under Section 22(4) of CG State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 (for short, ‘Act of 1962) on the ground that he committed grave misconduct by being continuously absent from duty, has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was appointed as Sub Engineer in the year 1985 and since then he was under employment of the respondents till his dismissal from service i.e. 27.07.2009. During his service tenure, he successfully performed his duties, there had been no adverse remarks against him except the allegation which are here in issue. On 10.12.2008, the appellant submitted application for grant of earned leave from 17.12.2008 to 22.12.2008 with permission to leave headquarters. The said leave was accordingly sanctioned. However, in view of his personal, religious as well as social responsibilities, the appellant applied for extension of the earned leave for the periods namely 23.12.2008 to 01.01.2009; 02.01.2009 to 31.01.2009; 01.02.2009 to 21.02.2009; 22.02.2009 to 13.03.2009; 14.03.2009  to  28.03.2009;  29.03.2009  to  17.04.2009;  18.04.2009  to 02.05.2009 and 03.05.2009 to 15.05.2009. Meanwhile, respondent No. 4 through letters dated 27.12.2008 and 16.1.2009 informed the appellant that his applications dated 22.12.2008 and 02.01.2009 for extension of earned leave were rejected and directed him to join his duties. Thereafter, show cause notices dated 12.03.2009 and 09.04.2009 were issued to the appellant. He further submits that the said letters and show cause notices were not served upon him and as such, he had no knowledge about the same. On 10.04.2009, a show cause notice was published in the newspaper, but since it was published in the newspaper having circulation in Ujjain / Shujalpur area only, the appellant could not read it. Thereafter, on 05.05.2009 a charge-sheet was issued against the appellant on the charges of being unauthorizedly absent from duty and not complying with the letters and show cause notices issued by the respondents. On 18.05.2009, the appellant submitted his resignation, however, vide order dated 28.05.2009, he was informed that his resignation could not be accepted as disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. On 04.06.2009, the appellant again submitted his resignation and thereafter, on 09.06.2009 a notice was issued to him as to why he should not be dismissed from the service under the provisions of Section 22(1)(G) of the Act of 1962. On 27.07.2009, respondent No. 3 passed an order dismissing the appellant from service in exercise of its power under the provisions of Section 22(4) of the Act of 1962 on the ground that the appellant has committed grave misconduct by being continuously absent from duty. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 29.12.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while dismissing the writ petition. As such, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant has filed the application for grant of earned leave for a period from 17.12.2008 to 22.12.2008, but mere submission of application for grant of earned leave is not sufficient for an employee to remain absent from duty continuously. The appellant’s applications for extension of earned leave were rejected and he was directed to join his duties vide orders dated 27.12.2008 and 16.01.2009. Show-cause notices were also issued on 12.03.2009 and 9.04.2009 to the appellant. Even on 30.04.2009 a general notice was published in the newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar”, Raipur instructing the appellant to remain present on duty, but the appellant did not obey the notice and directions of the respondent authorities. As the appellant neither replied to the show-cause notices nor joined the duties, the respondents decided to initiate departmental enquiry against the appellant. The appellant submitted his resignation on 18.05.2009 just to avoid show-cause notices and the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against him, but his resignation was not accepted by the respondent authorities because departmental enquiry was already initiated against the appellant. During the departmental enquiry when the appellant did not file any reply and did not take any defence to the charges leveled against him, the departmental enquiry was completed ex parte and he was issued a notice on 09.06.2009 stating as to why he should not be removed from service as provided under Rule 22(1)(G) of the Act of 1962. Thereafter, the appellant filed reply and the disciplinary authority having found the same unsatisfactory, imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant. The appellate authority also considering all the grounds raised in appeal by the appellant, dismissed the appeal by a well reasoned order. Therefore, the present appeal has no merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.04.2023 dismissed the writ petition of the appellant by observing as follows:

“11. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted where the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing, he was served with several notices and even a notice was published in the newspaper, it is evident that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in this case on behalf of the respondent authorities. The findings arrived at by the enquiry officer appear to be based on proper appreciation of the material placed on record. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, looking to the gravity of the charges, the conduct of the petitioner/delinquent and there being no disagreement between the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority as to the findings of charges, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jit Singh (supra), no interference is required in the same by this Court.

In the result, the petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in right perspective. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed.