NACHHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant. The petitioner -appellant has approached this Court by filing CWP No. 20614 of 2002 challenging order of his termination dated 28.2.1999 (P -11), passed by the Chief Engineer, Punjab, as well as order dated 6.6.2002 (P -16) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner appellant. It has remained undisputed that he was working as a Sectional Officer in the Department of Public Works (Buildings and Roads) Patiala. He was sanctioned 55 days earned leave from 5.3.1994 to 31.5.1994 enabling him to visit Canada to meet his daughter and arranging her marriage. He applied for extension of leave, which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.1994 (P -3). His subsequent request for extension of leave was also rejected vide order dated 3.2.1995 (P -4).

(2.) ON . 23.9.1996, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner -appellant for willful absence and not joining the duty. After lapse of 11 months, he submitted reply to the charge sheet on 19.8.1997 stating that his wife met with an accident on 31.5.1995 and he could: not re -join his duty because his wife was undergoing treatment. An inquiry was conducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer exonerated him (P -8). On 18.12.1998 (P -9), the Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R), Patiala, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner -appellant wherein a dissenting note to the following effect was also recorded for not agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer: -

(3.) THE primary argument raised by the petitioner -appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents have not taken into account 26 years of service rendered by him while terminating his service, which according to him entitles him right of grant of pension. The submission, thus, made was that instead of terminating his services, he ought to have been retired compulsorily. The other contention urged was that the disciplinary authority has not taken into account the explanation furnished by him. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing as under: -