JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. H.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed. Briefly put :

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on the allegations that he was appointed as Junior Draftsman by the Haryana State Electricity Board and was posted in Thermal Project at Panipat, He proceeded on casual leave for two days i.e. from 2.5.1984 which was sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board, Panipat. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he applied for the extension of the leave due to adverse domestic circumstances, but the same was rejected. He again requested for extension of leave on account of sudden death of his sister, but even this request was not acceded to, rather on the contrary, it was construed as a case of wilful absence from duty. As it so happened that the plaintiffs wife had to undergo treatment for heart trouble and so requested for extension of leave, but to no effect. Even the death of his uncle and father did not have any impact upon the defendants who were bent upon to terminate his services, Thus, with a pre-determination, the defendants proceeded to hold an enquiry, served him a show cause notice and finally passed an order of termination on 30.6.1987. The plaintiff has challenged this order on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice. The plaintiff further prayed that he may be reinstated and also awarded the full back wages.

(3.) The defendants put in appearance and controverted various allegations of the plaintiff. It was admitted that the plaintiff was granted only two days leave and his subsequent prayer for extension of leave was rejected as he was a newly appointee and no leave was due to him. Even his prayer for extraordinary leave without pay was not granted as the rules did not permit so. The defendants further averred that Shri M.P. Mittal was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who issued notice to the plaintiff to join enquiry, but he intentionally did not participate. It is further stated by the defendants that the plaintiff was asked to appear before the competent authority, but he did not put in appearance. However, explanation given by the plaintiff was considered by the competent authority, but the same was found to be of little value and thus rejected. This way, the services of the plaintiff were terminated having absented from the duty without any reason or cause. Consequently, the plaintiff was also not found entitled to any pay or allowances. The defendants also raised the plea that this Court has got no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute.