BALWANT SINGH MANGAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Transport Department of Punjab on June 10, 1974, as Motor Vehicles Inspector. Thereafter, he was appointed as Extra Assistant Transport Controller (Technical) and he was reverted as Motor Vehicle Inspector on June 4, 1987, and posted as such at Bathinda. Without joining at the place of posting, he applied for three months'leave originally on medical grounds. This leave of three months initially applied for, was sanctioned by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, he sent an application on September 24, 1987, for extension of leave again on medical grounds. Then the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Ludhiana, by letter dated October 26, 1987. Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana who examined the petitioner on November 12, 1987, found him fit to resume duties. Accordingly, a communication was sent to the petitioner on December 29, 1987, intimating him that the leave applied for by him in continuation of the earlier leave sanctioned, had been rejected and he was directed to report for duty immediately failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. In spite of this letter, he did not resume the duty through he was asked to join the duty repeatedly by the department. On the other hand, the petitioner sought for constitution of a Medical Board for his medical examination. Accordingly, on the request of the petitioner, Medical Board was constituted by the Director of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, and vide his letter dated February 11, 1988, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Standing Medical Board in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Faridkot, either on February 19, 1988, or on February 26, 1988, for his examination by the Medical Board. In spite of his request being acceded to by the department for constituting the Medical Board, the petitioner never appeared before the Medical Board at Faridkot. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to him on March 14, 1988. The same was returned with an endorsement that he was not found at the given address. Thereafter, also the petitioner was asked to resume his duties but he did not join duty. Then, Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct enquiry against the conduct of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer sent notice to the petitioner at the address given by him but the said registered notice was also returned with an endorsement that he was not found at the given address. Thereafter an ex- parte enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of wilful absence from duty. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, by his order dated October 3, 1989, dismissed the petitioner from service. The said order was also sent to the petitioner but the same was also returned unserved. Therefore, the same was published in the newspaper namely, The Tribune dated December 27, 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Secretary, Transport, Punjab, on January 30, 1990. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on October 29, 1990.

(2.) The petitioner thereupon filed this Writ Petition invoking the Certiorarial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Transport Commissioner dated October 3, 1989, (Annexure P-1) as confirmed by the Secretary, Transport Department, Punjab, dated October 29, 1990, (Annexure P-2).

(3.) This Writ Petition came up for admission before the Division Bench of this Court, which issued Notice of Motion. Thereafter, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated July 22, 1991, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that the enquiry report had not been communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588. Thereafter, the State of Punjab filed a Civil Appeal No. 352 of 1994, in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court took the view that as the order of dismissal was passed before November 20, 1990, the decision of Mohd, Ramzan's case is not applicable to the facts of the case, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1993 6 JT 1. Therefore, the Apex Court set aside the order of this Court dated July 22, 1991, and remanded the matter to this Court for disposal in accordance with law after considering other points raised in the writ petition. Thus, the matter has come up for final hearing now.