JAGDISH SINGH CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Junior Engineer in the office of the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, was ordered to be transferred. On transfer, he was to join duty forthwith at the Improvement Trust, Patiala. The petitioner did not care to join for a period of 4 years. The order of transfer was passed on 30.5.1990. Therefore, he should have joined at Patiala on 1.6.1990. The petitioner however, did not submit the joining report till 22.11.1994. His joining report was accepted. However, in the meantime, a departmental enquiry had been initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had remained absent without leave. Consequently, an order was passed on 28.10.1994 inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner. The period of absence was treated as extra -ordinary leave without pay. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the appellate authority.

(2.) A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority, which is attached as Annexure P -8, shows that the appellate authority had considered that the petitioner hay been unduly harassed and humiliated. It was also observed by the appellate authority that the department should have taken a more liberal and humane view. Therefore, keeping in view the specific merits of the case, the appellate authority was inclined to undo an unwarranted step taken in meting out the punishment to the petitioner. By order dated 10.4.2003, the appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted. He was fully and finally exonerated. A direction was issued to the competent authority to treat his period of absence as leave of the kind due and settle all his retiral benefits accordingly. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No.8547 of 2003. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 12.1.2005. The order passed in appeal dated 10.4.2003 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Secretary to Government Punjab to re -adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner and pass a fresh speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of certified copy of the order being received. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before him for personal hearing. In response to the notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 12.3 2005 and submitted that:

(3.) MR . Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the appellate authority is not sustainable as again no decision has been taken as to how the period between 1.6.1990 to 21.11.1994 is to be treated. Learned counsel submitted that earlier the appellate authority had committed an error while not passing any specific order as to how the period between 1.6.1990 to 21.11.1994 was to be treated, which led the petitioner to file C.W.P. No.8547 of 2003. Now the view taken by the appellate authority is wholly perverse. He has come to a conclusion reached by the earlier appellate authority on the basis of the same material. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the appellate authority is not based on the material which was placed before the departmental authorities as well as before the appellate authority. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner was not permitted to join duty when he had been declared medically fit on 21.11.1991. Once the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to join duty, he cannot be held to have been absent without leave till he was ultimately permitted to join duty on 22.11.1994.