GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal dated 18.02.2005 (Annexure P-1) stands rejected.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the punishing authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal vide the impugned order has taken into consideration other punishments imposed upon him during his service tenure which is not a part of the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. No notice qua these punishments was given to the petitioner when the show cause notice was issued and taking into consideration these punishments while imposing the punishment of dismissal vide the impugned order upon the petitioner would be violative of the principle of natural justice. His further contention is that the past service of 24 years of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while deciding the appeal, as per directions dated 16.05.2011 issued by this Court in L.P.A. No. 809 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 21143 of 2010. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gurdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2007(1) RSJ 45 , to contend that while deciding the quantum of punishment, length of service should be taken into consideration and the material which is not a part of the show cause notice cannot be taken into consideration. It is accordingly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of dismissal be converted into compulsory retirement and pension may be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner absented himself from service for which he was charge-sheeted. Even during the inquiry proceedings and thereafter, the petitioner continued to be absent from duty. Despite he having been served with a notice for attending the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer, he chose not to do that. Public notices were issued and the same was published in the news papers i.e. "The Indian Express, Chandigarh", "The Indian Express, New Delhi" and "Dainik Tribune, Chandigarh" on various dates informing the employee that disciplinary proceedings were pending but despite that he opted not to appear before the Inquiry Officer and accordingly ex-parte proceedings were held against him, in which the Inquiry Officer found him guilty of absence from duty without intimation and prior permission from the competent authority. He accordingly contends that keeping in view the earlier record of the petitioner wherein it was proved that he was a habitual of remaining absent from duties and various punishments have been imposed upon him, the punishment of dismissal was passed by the competent authority. These punishments have been taken into consideration while determining quantum of punishment and has not been taken into consideration with regard to his misconduct of absence from duty which was proved independently he accordingly prays that the order passed by the competent authority dismissing him from service is in accordance with law.