DALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Dental Surgeon serving in the Health Department, Haryana. He applied for ex -India leave in 2006 with permission to travel to Canada. His request was accepted by permission order dated 29th May, 2006. The petitioner had earned leave to his credit and was permitted to draw from that to cover the period 12th June, 2006 to 08th December, 2006. The earned leave request was accepted by order dated 28th September, 2006. While in Canada, the petitioner applied for extension of leave to 25th January, 2007. He resumed duty on 24th January, 2007 in Haryana Armed Police Hospital, Madhuban, Karnal. The petitioner again filed a request through letter dated 19th February, 2007 addressed to the Commandant 4th Battalion, HAP Hospital, Madhuban giving out that his parents are living in Canada and since his mother is a patient of Diabetes and Cardiac dysfunction therefore he has to go to Canada to look after them. He accordingly requested the authorities that his leave from 19th March, 2007 to 14th July, 2007 be accepted. The petitioner proceeded to Canada to join his parents residing there. One day short of the last date of the expiry of the leave he made a request for extension of his leave till 10th January, 2008. The narration of facts pleaded in the petition stops at 10th January, 2008. The further narration of facts begins with a charge -sheet dated 14th July, 2010 issued to the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987.

(2.) THE charge against him was that he was staying abroad without permission from Government and, therefore, he had violated Rule 3.1(ii) and (iii) of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966 which made him liable to strict disciplinary action. His reply was sought. The petitioner pleads in para. 6 of the writ petition that he did not receive a copy of the charge -sheet as a result of which he could not file reply. Be that as it may, an inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry proceedings remained ex parte and were concluded on 20th October, 2011 by observing that it was not possible to conduct the inquiry since the petitioner was living in a foreign country. The inquiry officer recorded in his conclusion that the documents were clear enough and a fax message was sent by the Commandant 4th Battalion, HAP Hospital, Madhuban so in these circumstances, it was not possible to conduct the inquiry. The petitioner was issued a second show cause notice on 8th December, 2011 that charges levelled stood proven and the Government of Haryana acting through the disciplinary authority was provisionally of the opinion that a penalty of dismissal from service may be imposed on him. The respondents accordingly granted 15 days' time to the petitioner to file representation against the show cause notice. This show cause notice was received by the petitioner. He replied that the so -called inquiry report cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The inquiry officer has not held any charge to be proved against him nor had he mentioned at the end of the report that under what circumstances it was not possible to conduct and complete the inquiry. His explanation was shrouded by parental health problems which kept him back from joining his duties. He appears to have made stories of 'some social compulsion and passport constraints' which kept him back. He promised that he would join his duties in August 2012. His reply is dated 11th May, 2012. On 6th May, 2013 the Government dismissed the petitioner from service.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Goel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the papers placed before me.