Chattisgarh High Court
Abhishek Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 December, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 547 of 2022
Abhishek Singh S/o Shri Vimal Kumar Singh Aged About 31 Years Ex-
Tuberculosis Health Visitor, R/o Ram Ashrey Bhawan, Arvind Nagar,
Bandhwapara, Sarkanda Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, Tahsil And
District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Health And
Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Chairman /Collector District Health Society, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer District- Bilaspur, Nutan Chowk
Seepat Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
02.12.2022
Heard Mr. S. P. Kale, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the
respondents.
2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 10.08.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.1794 of 2021.
3. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :
"1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition
claiming for following reliefs:-
"10.1 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call record from the respondent office in related
to petitioner.
10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct respondent authority to pay illegal
deducted salary of 3 days in January, 2020, 4
days in February, 2020 and salary from April,
2020 to receiving of dated 25 October, 2020
(received order of termination) with 18%
interest.
10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to
the petition which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
10.4 That the cost of the petition be granted."
2. In pursuance of this Court's order dated
01.08.2022, Chief Medical and Health Officer
(CMHO), Bilaspur is appeared before this Court
and placed on record the daily attendance
register, in which, the petitioner was shown to be
remain absent for the month from April, 2020 to
October, 2020. The petitioner is also present in
person before this Court and objected the
authenticity and correctness of the attendance
register produced by the CMHO. This disputed
facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court while
hearing the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. Let the petitioner may take recourse available
to him under the law to rebut the authenticity and
correctness of the attendance register produced
by the CMHO and to demonstrate that he
reported for duty.
4. With these observations and directions, the
instant petition stands disposed of."
4. Before us also, Mr. Tiwari has produced the Register after having
shown to Mr. Kale.
5. Mr. Kale submits that the appellant was not required to attend the
office and mark his attendance as, he being a Tuberculosis Health Officer,
was required to do field work only.
6. Placing reliance on Annexure P/17, he submits that the same would
demonstrate that the appellant had worked upto May, 2020. It is contended
by him that subsequently also the appellant had attended duty upto
07.11.2020, on which date he was terminated arbitrarily and illegally.
However, for the period from June, 2020 to 07.11.2020 as the ID of the
appellant was blocked, he could not prepare documents like Annexure
P/17. Mr. Kale submits that the appellant has been paid salary only upto
March, 2020 and not beyond that.
7. Annexure P/17 are documents signed by the appellant and there is no
endorsement of any other authority.
8. On a specific query of the Court as to whether the termination order
dated 07.11.2020 was assailed by the appellant in any forum, it is submitted
by Mr. Kale that the same has not been challegned.
9. Generally, whether a person has attended office or not is reflected by
the presence marked by the employee in the attendance register or through
bio-metric device.
10. The attendance register does not bear the signature of the appellant.
11. We do not wish to comment on the submission of Mr. Kale that the
appellant was not required to mark his attendance in attendance register as
he was required to do field work.
12. As disputed facts had been raised, the same being not possible to be
adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
learned Single Judge left the appellant to take recourse to such remedies as
may be available to him in law.
13. In a matter of present nature, we are of the opinion that no
interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge. We also
reserve liberty to the appellant as observed by the learned Single Judge to
seek remedy in accordance with law.
14. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Sanjay Agrawal)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
