BALDEV SINGH Vs. THE REGISTRAR, CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

(2.) Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Baldev Singh petitioner through this writ petition has given challenge to the orders dated 26.4.1989 (Annexure P-4) and 25.1.1989 (Annexure P-3).

(3.) I have gone through the impugned orders. The main allegation against the petitioner was that he remained absent from duty with effect from 10.8.1988 without any application or sanction of leave. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the most if is a case of misconduct and the respondents ought to have held a regular inquiry before passing the impugned order. Annexure P-3 and P-4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that since the order P-3 and P-4 are stigmatic in nature, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the back wages. She relies upon 1999(4)SCT 749.