STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MUSSADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE regular second appeal is against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court granting the benefit which was claimed by the plaintiff in suit, namely, that the stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect passed by the appellate authority in the departmental proceeding was against the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the Appellate Court decree, the claim was made by the decree holder for monetary benefits and the Court declined the relief. The Executing Court granted the relief claimed in the judgment. The revision against the order in both the cases, therefore, relate to tenability or otherwise of the relief claimed in the plaint by the respondent.

(2.) SOME more facts would require to be stated to get the hang of the case. The plaintiff -respondent proceeded on casual leave for two days on 11.04.1992. The appellant was to report for duty on 15.04.1992.

(3.) HE reported back for duty and disciplinary proceeding had been initiated on the ground that the plaintiff had overstayed for 48 days beyond the period of leave availed by him. When show cause notice was issued on 17.07.1992. The plaintiff attempted to explain that he could not join back on account of a serious injury in an accident at home and that he remained admitted in Civil Hospital, Jind up to 31.05.1992 and his own absence was, therefore, under the circumstances, which were beyond his control on account of his illness. The departmental proceedings resulted in dismissing him from service on finding that explanation given by the plaintiff was not acceptable. The plaintiff had preferred an appeal to the DIG, Hisar and the appellate authority rejected the plea of the plaintiff that there was any justification for his absence but modified only the punishment by withdrawing the punishment of dismissal and converting the same in stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Revision to the DGP, Haryana had been dismissed on 03.11.1993.