ONKAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for exemption from filing the true typed copies of judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 passed by learned ADJ, Jalandhar and grounds of appeal filed before learned ADJ, Jalandhar.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was working as a Junior Assistant in 80th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., when he as per the policy of the Government of Punjab, availed five years leave under the self-employment scheme with effect from 24. 12.2004 to 24.12.2009. The said leave was granted by the competent authority. Prior to the expiry of the said period of leave, appellant sought extension of his leave with effect from 25.12.2009 to 25.02.2010 through a telegram. This extension of leave request was not decided and the appellant-plaintiff proceeded to avail of his leave on the assumption that there being no rejection on the said application, he has probably been granted the extension. The said application was ultimately rejected vide order dated 15.03.2010 by the Director General of Police, Punjab. He contends that the non-decision on the part of the respondents in deciding his application for leave cannot be taken adversely against him, especially when prior to the expiry of the period of leave, for which he had sought extension, he had not been intimated about the said rejection. The order, therefore, virtually is NON EST because the period for which he had sought extension has already expired. That apart, he asserts that even the departmental inquiry which had been ordered to be initiated against the appellant-plaintiff vide order dated 15.03.2010 by the Director General of Police and the consequential inquiry is in violation of the principle of natural justice as neither any notice has been served upon him nor has he been associated with the inquiry proceedings. The statutory rules governing the service of the delinquent employee which having not been followed would amount to violation of the rules and, therefore, the proceedings which have been initiated and the consequential order of dismissal from service are unsustainable and deserve to be set aside. The Courts below have failed to appreciate these aspects and have, therefore, wrongly dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant-plaintiff. He, thus, prays that the present appeal be allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments but do not find myself in agreement with the contentions as raised by the counsel for the appellant.