Dheeraj Kumar Soni vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Dheeraj Kumar Soni, was selected by the Public Service Commission in 2022 and received an appointment order on December 27, 2023, for the post of Excise Sub-Inspector in Raigarh district. The order stipulated joining within 15 days, failing which the appointment would be automatically cancelled. The petitioner did not join within this period and sought extensions, submitting an application on March 30, 2021 (received April 8, 2024) for further extension. The petitioner claims the impugned order, dated May 2024, was received unofficially and lacks a specific date. The respondents contend that the petitioner failed to join for approximately three months, leading to the automatic cancellation of his appointment as per the order's conditions. The judgment notes the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Development Extension Officer since 2018 and the record does not indicate if he resigned from that post.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order (Annexure P/6) cannot be faulted due to the lapses on the part of the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's failure to adhere to the conditions of the appointment order, specifically the requirement to join within 15 days. Despite the petitioner's claims regarding the unofficial receipt of the order and its unclear date, the Court found the cancellation of appointment justified by the petitioner's own delay in joining. The Court did not explicitly address the argument about the model code of conduct preventing resignation, but the dismissal of the petition implies this was not a sufficient ground to override the appointment conditions. The ratio decidendi is that failure to comply with the mandatory joining period in an appointment order, without sufficient justification, leads to automatic cancellation, and the employee bears the onus of proving valid reasons for delay. The Court dismissed the petition, denying the relief sought by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated May 2024, issued by the Excise Commissioner, is liable to be set aside due to lack of a specific date and unofficial receipt by the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner's failure to join the post of Excise Sub-Inspector within the stipulated 15 days, despite seeking extensions, justifies the automatic cancellation of his appointment as per the terms of the appointment order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order is invalid as it was received unofficially via WhatsApp, lacks a specific date, and only indicates the month and year (May 2024). He further contended that his inability to join was due to his senior officers refusing to accept his resignation because the model code of conduct was in effect from March 16, 2024. He sought a fresh posting order. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner admittedly failed to join within the 15-day period stipulated in the appointment order, despite being given sufficient time. Consequently, his appointment stood automatically cancelled in accordance with the conditions of the appointment order. They also noted that the record does not reflect whether the petitioner resigned from his previous employment.