1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Hitvad Parisar, Avanti v. 1 - Krishna Shende
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6232-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 75 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Chairman, Hitvad Parisar, Avanti Vihar Colony, Headquarters, Raipur, Dist Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Hitvad Parisar, Avanitvihar Colony Headquarters, Raipur, Distt Raipur, (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1 - Krishna Shende (Dead Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 17-08-2023
Legal Reasoning
1.1 - Anjali Shende W/o Late Shri Krishna Shende, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 163/ka, Ward 15, Govindpur, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 1.2 - Ankita Shende D/o Late Shri Krishna Shende, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 163/ka, Ward 15, Govindpur, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 1.3 - Anmol Shende S/o Late Shri Krishna Shende, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 163/ka, Ward 15, Govindpur, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. S. Majid Ali, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal and Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocates. Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04-02-2025 Heard on I.A. No.2, application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No.2 is allowed and the delay in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the writ appellants against the impugned order dated 15-02-2024 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3162/2014 whereby the writ
Decision
petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and he was granted benefit of 50% back wages from period from 07-11-2014 to 05-11- 2021 and also directed the authorities to consider and decide claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per applicable policy. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the original petitioner Krishna Shende was appointed as Godown Assistant at C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vide order dated 08-09-1988 and he joined his duty on 24-09-1988. Due to unavoidable reasons the original petitioner could not appear in his duty in the year 2011 and then notices have been issued to him on 05-11-2011, 05-08- 2011 and 16-11-2011 and subsequently a newspaper publication in daily newspaper Hari Bhumi was also published on 30-05-2012 3 and all of sudden the petitioner’s services has been terminated vide its order dated 11-07-2012 on the ground of his unauthorized absence from duty from 20-07-2011. The petitioner made his representation on 30-10-2012 disclosing the reasons for his absence and stated that due to various calamities occurring in his family leading to death of his father, mother, mother-in-law and brother-in-law he could not join his duty. He made representation to the authorities and ultimately preferred departmental appeal before respondent No.1. The said departmental appeal filed by the petitioners was decided and it has been held that he petitioner remained unauthorized absent from 2005 to 11-07-2012. The petitioner has made his subsequent representation on 15-05-2013 and 12-07-2013 stating therein that Rule 14 of C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1966 was not complied with and since the grievance of the petitioner has not been settled by the respondent department he filed writ petition claiming relief of setting side the order of his termination dated 11-07-2012 and also setting aside the order passed in departmental appeal on 08- 05-2013 and consequently, he claimed consequential benefits from 11-07-2012. During pendency of the writ petition original petitioner Krishna Shende has died on 05-11-2021 and the names of present petitioners being legal heirs of the original petitioner have been substituted. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge vide order dated 15-02-2024 has disposed of the writ petition filed by the 4 petitioners with direction that the petitioner (original petitioner Krishna Shende) is entitled for 50% of back wages from the period from 07-11-2014 to 05-11-2021 and also directed that if the legal heirs of the petitioner (Krishna Shende) files a representation before the concerned authority of the respondents claiming compassionate appointment, the said authority shall consider and decide such claim as per the applicable policy. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is challenged by the Corporation in the present writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that despite show cause notices on various occasions have been issued to the petitioner and newspaper publication was also done and when the petitioner failed to appear and submit his explanation, the termination order was passed. He would also submit that though departmental appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08-05-2013, but the petitioner was granted opportunity to work in the department on contractual basis which he accepted with open eyes and worked on contractual basis, therefore, the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the termination order. The petitioner was in habit to remain absent from his duty on various occasions for which minor punishments have also been imposed on few occasions. The absence from duty without proper intimation is grave misconduct warranting removal from service, hence, no benefit can be granted to the writ petitioner and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. 6. From perusal of the order impugned as well as the document annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that prior to the termination order dated 11-07-2012, several notices were issued to the petitioner and a newspaper publication was also made, but the petitioner neither appeared in his duty nor submitted his reply. The petitioner was initially appointed as Godown Assistant vide order dated 08-09-1988 and subsequently his services were regularized and he attains the status of regular Govt. Servant. The petitioner cannot be removed from service without any departmental enquiry in accordance with law as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that he remained absent from his duty without any information for about 7 years without holding any departmental enquiry. 7. The learned Single Judge has considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 and 6 held that the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absent of the employees is willful and in absence of such finding his absence does not amount to misconduct and therefore, the termination order of the petitioner was found suffers from illegality and has set aside the termination order of the petitioner. Since during pendency of the petition, the writ petitioner Krishna Shende has died, no order of his reinstatement could be passed. However, the petitioner is held entitled for 50% of the back wages for period from 07-11-2014 to 05-11-2021. 8. Since the petitioner was in employment on contract basis with the department upto 06-11-2014, therefore, the entitlement of 50% back wages was from period of 07-11-2014 to 05-11-2021, therefore, we do not find any illegality or perversity in that part of order that the petitioner is entitled for 50% of back wages from 07- 11-2014 to 05-11-2021. 9. So far as his claim of compassionate appointment is concerned, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, as well as his absence from the duty for a long time, though the termination order of the petitioner is set aside, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the opinion that the legal heirs of the petitioner are not entitled for compassionate appointment on ground of death of the writ petitioner Krishna Shende and therefore, the observation in para 16 of the impugned order dated 15-02-2024 passed in WPS No.3162/2014 is set aside to that extent. With the aforesaid 7 considerations, the writ appeal is partly allowed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil