SOHAN SINGH TUCKER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner initially joined the Industries Department on July 13, 1962 on the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission. He was appointed Block Development and Panchayat Officer, he was confirmed in November, 1966. On October 21, 1974 he proceeded on 120 day's leave (November 6, 1974 to March 5, 1975) for USA. While being in USA, the petitioner got his leave extended upto July 3, 1975, from time to time. Further case of the petitioner is that he had been sending applications but had not heard anything with regard to sanction of further extension in leave. In October, 1979, according to the petitioner, he learnt from some friend that departmental proceedings had been initiated against him. He came back to India and submitted a joining report on October 9, 1979. Respondent No.2, however, declined to accept the said report or to permit the petitioner to join. On October 10, 1979, he petitioner made a request that in the alternative he may be granted premature retirement. That was also not acceded to. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner why he be not dismissed from service. He filed a representation against the proposed dismissal vide Annexure P-1 dated April 15, 1980. Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed by order Annexure P-2 dated November 26, 1981. He has assailed the order by filing the present writ petition almost after 12 years on December 16, 1993.

(2.) The written statement has been filed by the Commissioner, Development and Secretary to Government Punjab. The initial grant and extension of leave, as pleaded by the petitioner, have been admitted. Further applications for extension were received without any address of the petitioner in USA. The department, therefore, wrote to the petitioner's father, Mr. Jiwan Singh Tucker to find out the petitioner's address in USA. The father of the petitioner, however, expressed ignorance about the address of his son, adding that the department would be apprised of the address as and when the same is known. The address was never furnished by the petitioner's father. It was specifically denied that the petitioner had left his address in USA for purposes of correspondence before leaving India. The department was advised by the Accountant General that under rule 8.116 of the Punjab C.S.R., Volume F, Part I, the petitioner could be granted a maximum of 240 day's earned leave ex-India. Further extension of leave was, therefore, refused and the intimation of refusal of leave sent to petitioner's father Jiwan Singh Tucker as petitioner's address of USA was not available and had not been supplied by either the petitioner or his father. The petitioner, thus, remained absent without leave from July 4, 1975 onwards and he had been sending further applications from USA without giving his address of that place. The petitioner was informed about the refusal of extension in leave by a registered letter dated February 13, 1976, at the last known address in India. The letter was received back with the report that the petitioner was living in USA. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on June 22, 1976. The petitioner could not be served for purposes of enquiry. The enquiry was held by Deputy Director, Panchayats, who submitted his report dated November 1, 1976, holding the petitioner guilty of absence without permission with effect from July 4, 1975. It was decided tentatively to dismiss the petitioner, for which show cause notice was sent at the last known address in India, but the same was received back undelivered. Thereafter a public notice was got published in reputed newspapers in India on October 26, 1978, asking the petitioner to show cause within 30 days from the date of publication. No reply was received from the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner purported to join his duties on October 18, 1979, and also sent an application for premature retirement on October 18, 1979. In connection with the said application for premature retirement, the petitioner was asked to come to Chandigarh on December 18, 1979, and appear before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, but he failed to turn up. Again the petitioner left India without informing the Government. The petitioner had been supplied copies of all communications addressed to him including the show cause notice on May 8, 1978, at his USA address and he was asked to send his reply with regard to the charges levelled against him. He sent his reply from USA on April 15, 1980. He was dismissed from service on November 26, 1981, after seeking approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission.

(3.) The contention of Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner's application for premature retirement had not been considered and this had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. On behalf of the State, it has been vehemently argued that the facts of the case speak for themselves. The petitioner had remained absent without getting the leave sanctioned since July 4, 1975. This is not a case in which the petitioner may not have become aware of the institution of the departmental proceedings. In fact, all along the department had made efforts repeatedly to apprise the petitioner of the developments. The petitioner bad not left his mailing address of USA before leaving. His father did not cooperate and furnish the petitioner's address. It was, in these circumstances, that the notification was published in the newspapers. At one stage, the petitioner made an application for seeking premature retirement. He was asked to appear before the Director and again the petitioner failed to turn up and left the country for USA without getting any leave. It has further been argued that the petitioner is guilty of inordinate delay in approaching the Court and no case has been made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.