Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2784
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, J.
Darshan Lal Bhandari
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 16677 of 2010,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
The court emphasized the importance of cooperation during inquiry proceedings and upheld the principle of commensurate punishment for misconduct.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Employment Dispute - Punjab Civil Services Rules (Volume I Part I Chapter VII) - Rule 7.2
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee, sought leave under the Self Employment Scheme, which was declined. Subsequently, the petitioner did not join duty, leading to departmental action and dismissal from service. The petitioner also claimed subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner intentionally did not bring out his defense before the Inquiry Officer or the Punishing Authority, and remained absent after 1.3.2006. The court upheld the dismissal from service and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for subsistence allowance.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's absence from duty, failure to cooperate during inquiry proceedings, and the claim for subsistence allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment awarded was commensurate with the misconduct, and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for subsistence allowance in accordance with Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
Final Decision: The court upheld the dismissal from service and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for subsistence allowance within a specified timeframe.
Ajai Lamba, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 28.5.2008, 10.1.1.2008, 22.6.2010 and 16.8.2010, Annexures P-13, P-16, P-18 and P-19, respectively.
2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, on 6.12.1980 and, thereafter, was promoted as a Clerk on 7.7.1988. The petitioner was further promoted as Senior Assistant on 1.1.1991. In 1997, the petitioner was transferred to Moga, on creation of a new revenue district. The petitioner wanted to avail the benefit of Self Employment Scheme floated by the respondent-State. Under the circumstances, the petitioner applied for leave for 5 years under the Scheme. It has been pleaded that the petitioner spent substantial amount for purchase of a shop, to be self employed. The petitioner applied for leave on 12.9.2005 under the Scheme. The respondents, vide order dated 14.2.2006, however, directed the petitioner to join duty on 1.3.2006. The application for leave under the self employment scheme was declined.
3. In para-6 of the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner informed the employer by sending a written letter that the petitioner had already started his business, which was progressing and it would not be possible for the petitioner to attend office. Copy of the letter has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. Vide letter (Annexure P-8), the petitioner again pleaded for sanction of leave for 5 years under Self Employment Scheme. It has further been pleaded that the leave was not sanctioned, rather the period of absence was converted into earned leave.
4. In view of continued absence of the petitioner, it seems that departmental action was initiated against the petitioner. Regular inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report on 27.8.2007.
5. Order (Annexure P-16) is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Moga i.e. the Punishing Authority. On a perusal of the same, it is brought out that the petitioner, in fact, had proceeded on medical leave with effect from 14.1.2005. While on medical leave, the petitioner filed an application for leave for 5 years under the Self Employment Scheme, on 12.9.2005. The respondents, vide order dated 24.2.2006, however, allowed the petitioner earned leave up to 28.2.2006 and refused leave of 5 years under the Self Employment Scheme. The petitioner was asked to join duty on 1.3.2006.
6. Order dated 24.2.2006 has not been placed on record for consideration of this Court. Even the inquiry report has not been placed on record for consideration of this Court and, therefore, the facts are being gathered from the impugned orders only.
7. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not join duty at all despite the fact that the leave was not sanctioned and was declined. Even in inquiry proceedings, although opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner repeatedly, yet the petitioner did not join inquiry proceedings. Charge-sheet was served and no reply to the charge-sheet was filed. The Punishing Authority, on receipt of the inquiry report and other documents, served a show cause notice on the petitioner to enable the petitioner to bring out his defence. Even though repeated attempts were made through personal service and through publication in newspapers, the petitioner did not appear before the Punishing Authority nor did he file any reply. It is under these circumstances that the facts and circumstances of the case have been considered and the impugned order (Annexure P-16) dismissing the petitioner from service has been passed.
8. It seems that the petitioner carried an appeal to the Commissioner. It has been brought out that the leave for 5 years could not have been sanctioned for administrative reasons i.e. due to shortage of staff. The petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority
