RANBIR SINGH BAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is impugned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order passed by the Commandant General, Punjab Home Guards and Director, Civil Defence, Punjab discharging the petitioner from service under Rule 18 of the Punjab Home Guards Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules') and also the order in appeal.

(2.) Petitioner was selected some time in February, 1968 as a civil defence instructor on whole time basis with the Punjab Home Guards on a consolidated pay of Rs. 150/- per month plus dearness allowance. According to condition No. 3 of his appointment letter, he was subject to discharge at any time without notice. However, he was required to give on month's notice if he was to resign or deposit on month's salary in lieu thereof. He was also governed by the Punjab Home Guards Act, 1947 and the rules and also the Government Servant Conduct Rules as in force from time to time. After working as a civil defence instructor for some years, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Company Commander in May, 1976 in the scale of Rs. 320-20-460/20-600/-. As stated in para 3 of the written statement and not controverted by the petitioner, he was a temporary employee all through and was never confirmed or made permanent against any rank. Although the petitioner contends that he remained on leave from 18.6.1982 to 28.6.1982 and submitted his joining report on the following day, the categoric stand of the respondents in the written statement as also in the impugned orders in that he remained wilfully absent from duty w.e.f. April 2, 1982 till June 29, 1982. This stand of the respondents has not been controverted by the petitioner and I shall, therefore, proceeded on the basis that he remained absent. A number of letters including some under registered post were written to the petitioner asking him to join duty but he did not turn up. He even did not submit his leave application. In view of his absence from duty, the Commandant General, Punjab Home Guards and Director Civil Defence, Punjab by an order passed on June 29, 1982 discharged the petitioner from service under Rule 18 of the Rules. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government and the same was dismissed in view of his unsatisfactory service record. He challenged the order of discharge as also the order dismissing the appeal in this Court by filing CWP 1810 of 1985 which was partly allowed on June 8, 1990. The appellant order was set aside and the case was sent back to the State Government with a direction to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner by a detailed speaking order giving reasons in support thereof. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the Financial Commissioner (Home) and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, disposed of the appeal after hearing the petitioner and dismissed the same by an order dated June 18, 1991. It is this order as also the order of discharge that have been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged before me that since the service of the petitioner was being terminated on account of his absence from duty, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to have effort to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as is envisaged in Rule 27 of the Rules. According to the learned counsel, the Commandant General, Home Guards could not resort to Rule 18 of the Rules and discharge the petitioner from service. He cited the judgment of A.L. Bahri, J. in Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 1 RSJ 79 in support of his contention.