CWP No.20505 of 1008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CASE NO.: CWP No.20505 of 1008
DATE OF DECISION: December 5, 2008
DR. KHEM RAJ TULI ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA.
PRESENT: MR. G.S. JASWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)
The challenge in the writ petition is to the orders (Annexures
P-6 and P-9) dated 15/26.3.2007 and 14.3.2008, passed by the Secretary,
Health & Family Welfare Department, Punjab vide which the petitioner has
been removed from service.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as
Medical Officer on 8.2.1989 on ad hoc basis. His services were regularized
on 17.1.1996. The petitioner applied for leave without pay w.e.f 15.2.1999
to 14.2.2000, as he wanted to do fellowship in Cardiology at the Escort
Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. The leave applied for by
the petitioner was duly sanctioned by the competent authority vide letter
dated 25.2.1999. However, despite the fact that leave was granted to the
petitioner upto 14.2.2000, the petitioner did not report for duty even after
the expiry of the leave period. Accordingly, vide letter dated 7.9.2005
(Annexure P-1), the petitioner was informed that it has been decided to
CWP No.20505 of 1008 -2-
initiate disciplinary action against him under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 on the following basis:-
“i. Remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly and
intentionally and from 15.0.2000 till date.
ii. Negligence from duty.
iii. Disobeying the orders of higher officers.
iv. Disobeying the Government Rules."
The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet vide Annexure P-2,
however, his reply was not found to be satisfactory and it was decided to
investigate the charges leveled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet
vide order dated 19.10.2005. Sh. G.S. Aggarwal, IAS (Retd.) was appointed
as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after giving full opportunity to the
petitioner to present his case submitted his report dated 28.2.2006, wherein
the charges stood proved. The petitioner was sent a copy of the enquiry
report and considering his reply the petitioner was ordered to be removed
from service vide order dated 15.3.2007 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner
filed a review petition which was also dismissed vide order, Annexure P-9.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that mere absence
from duty cannot be termed as misconduct on part of the employee and that
proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner before terminating his
services. It has also been argued that as the petitioner has shown his
willingness to join duty, therefore, the punishment meted out is extremely
harsh.
A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that the petitioner
had applied leave without pay w.e.f. 15.2.1999 on 14.2.2000. He did not
join his duty till the day when the orders of his termination was passed. The
CWP No.20505 of 1008 -3-
petitioner has unauthorizedly remained absent from duty from 15.2.2000
onwards, i.e. for more than 7 years. The allegation of the petitioner that he
was not given proper opportunity of defending himself and further that
being absent from duty is not sufficient ground for removal from service
cannot be accepted as the petitioner has remained absent unauthorizedly for
a very long period. The Department had addressed innumerable letters
asking the petitioner to rejoin his duty, but despite that the petitioner chose
to remain absent unauthorizedly. The petitioner was given full opportunity
to present his case and after considering his reply he was found guilty by the
enquiry officer and the orders of his removal from service were passed by
the competent authority. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same
is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
December 5, 2008 (RAJAN GUPTA)
Gulati JUDGE