Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Radhey Shyam Pancham v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 17790 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 17643 (12 October 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court no. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17790 of 2003

Radhey Shyam Pancham


State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.  

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri S.P. Singh.

The petitioner is a class IV employee whose services have been terminated by way of an order dated 4.2.2003 under the U.P. Government Temporary Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents which reveals in para 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was careless in performing his duties and was absenting himself from his duties continuously from 1990 upto the year 1998 and this 11 periods of absenteeism conduct of the petitioner was condoned by the respondents.

It is the petitioner's case that he fell sick on 23.9.2002 and he made an application to the respondent no.2 for grant of the medical leave. It is the petitioner's contention that he remained under the treatment of doctor from 23.9.2002 to 9.2.2003.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is denied that the petitioner moved any application for leave on 23.9.2002. However the petitioner has replied in the rejoinder affidavit that he did file application for medical leave. The medical certificates were subsequently produced by the petitioner on the date when he went to join his work.

The respondents have also placed on record an order passed by the District Judge, Allahabad dated 4.2.2003 in which he has passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner taking into account his past records.

The District Judge has also recorded his absence without leave and without any intimation after 23.9.2002. However the District Judge has not passed any order to say whether the medical certificates as filed by the petitioner were genuine or not nor does it record any finding that medical certificates produced were genuine or not.

From the facts as revealed in the petition as well as in the counter affidavit, it appears that at least on 11 occasions the absenteeism of the petitioner was condoned.

Such being the case, in my opinion, one last opportunity may be given to the petitioner by the respondent who may enquire and examine the matter whether the petitioner has really filed leave application on 23.9.2002 and whether the medical certificates as submitted by him in support of the alleged leave application were genuine or not.

In view of the above, it is directed that as a last opportunity, the respondents shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall reconsider his case on material already available on record within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Dated 12.10.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.