JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent- Harjinder Singh was appointed as Surveyor at Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar on 15.09.1971. He was confirmed on 02.06.1975. He proceeded on five days leave on 04.02.1980. He got his leave extended till 10.03.1980. Even thereafter he prayed for extension of leave from 10.03.1980 to 09.05.1980, which was done. He, however, still sought further extension of leave, which was declined. When he came to the office, he was informed that he stood removed from service vide order dated 14.10.1980. He, accordingly, approached the Court with the grievance that no charge sheet was issued to him. He thus challenged the order of his removal being illegal and void. His plea was that he had proceeded on sanctioned leave and the order passed against him being penal in nature, could not have been passed without holding the inquiry or following the proper procedure as per law.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the appellant-Improvement trust, it was submitted that the respondent-employee had abandoned the job and accordingly there was no requirement of holding any inquiry and the appellant was at liberty to pass the order in terms of provisions of Rule 17 of the Jalandhar Improvement Trust Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). These rules which provides that the provisions of Rules 12 to 15 both inclusive shall not apply when the accused is absconding. The suit was tried on the following issues:

(3.) Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and so too issue No. 2. Trial Court also held that the impugned order was not legal and was against the service rules. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed. Respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed an appeal against the same and the First Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court. The submission made on behalf of the appellant-Improvement trust to invoke the provisions of Rule 17 of the rules was not accepted by the First Appellate Court on the ground that this was not the case of abandonment of service by respondent-plaintiff. Improvement-trust, accordingly, filed the present Regular Second Appeal before the Court.