Dheeraj Kumar Soni vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The appellant, Dheeraj Kumar Soni, was selected for the post of Excise Sub Inspector by the Public Service Commission. He received a posting order on December 27, 2023, with a 15-day joining period. Due to family health issues, he applied for an extension of joining time until March 2024 and also requested a transfer. He did not receive a response. The model code of conduct for Lok Sabha elections came into force, preventing him from submitting his resignation. He later sent another representation seeking an extension until June 2024. Without receiving an official communication, he learned of his appointment cancellation on June 7, 2024, through WhatsApp. His writ petition challenging the cancellation was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. He filed this writ appeal against that dismissal.

Held

The Court held that the appellant had not joined the post of Excise Sub Inspector for almost three months, despite being given sufficient time. The appellant was already working as an Assistant Development Extension Officer and had not resigned from that post, nor had he provided cogent reasons for not joining the new post. The Court found that the appellant's representation, received on April 8, 2024, seeking time until June 2024, was duly considered by the respondent authorities. The Court concluded that the authorities rightly rejected the representation and cancelled the appellant's appointment. The learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition, did not commit any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error. Therefore, the writ appeal was found to be devoid of merit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Excise Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) was obligated to consider and decide the appellant's representation for extension of joining time before passing a punitive order cancelling his appointment, as argued by the appellant? 2. Whether the cancellation of the appellant's appointment without providing an opportunity of hearing, despite compelling family health issues, constitutes an arbitrary and illegal act, as contended by the appellant? 3. Whether the Excise Commissioner was required to consult the Public Service Commission before cancelling the appellant's appointment, and if non-compliance with this procedure caused irreparable loss, as submitted by the appellant? Respondents argued that the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition after considering all aspects, and no interference is warranted.