PUNJAB STATE Vs. RACHHPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is respondent in this appeal. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 24.4.1985 passed by Director of Public Instructions removing him from service was illegal and void and therefore, not binding on him. According to the facts, as contained in the plaint, the plaintiff was working as P.T.I. in Government High School, Harpur Dhandoi in District Gurdaspur when he went abroad after obtaining a no objection certificate from the defendants. However, he has stated that the department, in the meantime, published certain notices against him in certain newspapers asking him to join duty, but he having failed to join, he was removed from service. According to the plaintiff, it was not possible for him to know about the show-cause notices as he was not in India. The plaintiff, according to his case, returned from abroad some time in the year 1988 and after service of notice filed the present suit. The suit was hotly contested by the defendants. The case of the defendants was that plaintiff proceeded abroad without sanction of leave and without permission by the competent authority. He not having joined duty for such a long period, leave for which could not be sanctioned under law by any authority, his services were rightly terminated, he being absent from duty. 'According to the State, notices were sent on his address and ultimately in the newspapers and that the action of the State was correct, From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

(2.) The trial court found all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The defendants being dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the trial court preferred an appeal before the appellate court. This appeal too was dismissed.

(3.) Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab has vehemently argued that the plaintiff could not proceed abroad without first getting his leave sanctioned and that no authority can sanction leave for such a long period under the rules. On the other hand , the counsel for the plaintiff has agreed that the plaintiff presumed that the leave was sanctioned since he was relieved by the Headmaster. In any case, the learned counsel has argued that the plaintiff was not served with any notice before terminating his service and that the service of notice was essential. During the course of hearing, it was suggested by the Court to the learned counsel for the parties that in case the plaintiff is prepared to forget about the salary benefit, he should be allowed to join his duties again. Mr. G.K. Chatrath, A.G. Punjab had been nice to respond to the suggestion.