A probationary government servant’s extended unauthorized absence, even when accompanied by medical documentation, does not automatically entitle them to reinstatement. The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that such absence, when unexplained and prolonged, may be treated as deemed resignation under statutory rules governing probationary service. This judgment reinforces the limited rights of probationers and the administrative authority’s discretion to terminate service based on conduct during the probationary period.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Ranjna Devi Norge, appointed as Education Personnel, Class-II, on 20 December 2010, was serving under probation when she took leave due to sudden ill health on 25 October 2013. She informed her Headmaster and later submitted a joining application on 28 April 2014 upon recovery. Despite repeated follow-ups and submission of medical certificates, her joining was never formally accepted. No official communication was issued regarding her status for nearly a decade.
Procedural History
- 2013: Appellant went on medical leave after approximately 45 days of service
- 2014: Submitted joining application; no formal response received
- 2022: Court directed Respondent No. 2 to examine her case
- 2023: Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, rejected her application by order dated 31 March 2023, treating her absence as deemed resignation
- 2023: Writ petition filed before Single Judge (WPS No. 2902/2023)
- 2025: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
- 2026: Writ appeal filed before Division Bench
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the impugned order dated 31 March 2023, direction to allow her to assume charge, and a fair hearing before any adverse action. She contended that the denial of her service was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged unauthorized absence during probation, even with medical certificates, justifies treating the service as deemed resigned under Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, without issuing a show-cause notice or affording a formal hearing.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Learned counsel argued that the appellant had submitted medical certificates and repeatedly sought reinstatement, yet no show-cause notice was issued. He relied on the proviso to Section 11(2) of the Leave Rules, 2010, which mandates a reasonable opportunity to explain absence before action. He contended that the failure to provide a hearing rendered the order violative of natural justice and that delay in decision-making amounted to harassment.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the appellant’s absence of 186 days during probation was unexplained and excessive. The competent authority had considered her representation, medical records, and statutory provisions before concluding that her conduct amounted to abandonment of service. The State emphasized that probationers have no vested right to service and that Rule 11 permits treating prolonged unauthorized absence as deemed resignation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, which explicitly permits treating prolonged unauthorized absence during probation as deemed resignation. The Court noted that while the proviso to Section 11(2) requires an opportunity to explain absence, it does not mandate a formal show-cause notice in every case where the facts are clear and the conduct is unambiguous.
"The writ petitioner was appointed as Education Personnel, Class - II, on 20.12.2010 and was under probation at the relevant time. During the probation period, the writ petitioner remained absent from duty for an extended period of approximately 186 days, notwithstanding the submission of medical certificates and multiple applications."
The Court held that the authority had not acted arbitrarily. The medical certificates were acknowledged, but the duration and nature of absence - nearly six months during probation - could not be reconciled with the expectations of a probationer. The Court distinguished between procedural compliance and substantive justification: while a hearing is required, the absence of a formal notice does not invalidate the decision if the facts are evident and the action is consistent with statutory intent.
The Court further emphasized that probationary service is a trial period, and the employer retains the right to assess suitability. A probationer does not acquire a vested right to continue in service merely by virtue of initial appointment. The authority’s conclusion that prolonged absence amounted to abandonment was within its statutory powers and not perverse.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The Court held that prolonged unauthorized absence during probation, even with medical documentation, may be treated as deemed resignation under Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010, provided the authority has considered the facts and acted within statutory bounds. No formal show-cause notice was mandatory where the absence was unexplained and excessive.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Deemed Resignation Is Valid Without Formal Notice in Clear Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that Rule 11 permits deemed resignation without a show-cause notice if the absence is prolonged, unexplained, and occurs during probation
- Medical certificates alone do not override statutory provisions on unauthorized absence
- Administrative authorities may rely on the totality of conduct, not just procedural compliance
Probationers Have No Vested Right to Service
- Any claim for reinstatement by a probationer must overcome the burden of justifying prolonged absence
- Courts will not interfere if the authority has applied the rules objectively and consistently
- Delay in processing applications does not create a right to service if the underlying conduct violates statutory norms
Administrative Discretion Is Protected Under Statutory Framework
- Authorities are entitled to interpret rules in light of administrative necessity and service continuity
- Writ courts will not substitute their opinion unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or violates a mandatory procedural provision
- This judgment reinforces that statutory rules governing probation override general principles of fairness when the statutory language is clear
