Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 August, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 22.08.2014
Vijay Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
The State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
***
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
***
MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order Annexure P-9. The facts would indicate that the petitioner was working as a Vaid Incharge which assignment was allocated to him in the year 1976. In the year 1984, the petitioner went on leave for two months expiring in January, 1985. This leave was duly sanctioned to him but the petitioner did not return to join his assignment till 13.10.1998.
For some strange reasons, the petitioner was permitted to rejoin on the date i.e. 13.10.1998.
In 1989, a chargesheet was issued to him on the allegations that he had over-stayed his leave and had not reported back for duty since 1982 till 1998. The matter was inquired into in accordance with law leading to POONAM DEVI 2014.08.29 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2012 -2- the dismissal of the petitioner from service. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated in September 2007. The order of dismissal, according to the petitioner, cannot have a retrospective effect having been passed on 27.3.2012 whereas he had already superannuated on 30.9.2007.
This is precisely the grievance that has been raised in this petition that once the petitioner had superannuated, there could have been no question of his being dismissed from service.
On a prior occasion, the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.15226 of 2008 challenging the dismissal order and this Court disposed it of in the following terms:
"The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by relegating the petitioner to the remedy of appeal under the 1970 Rules. Since the petitioner has been pursuing this case, it is directed that in case the petitioner files a departmental appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order within six months thereafter.
Ordered accordingly. Dasti."
It is thereafter that the impugned order was passed by the Appellate Authority after giving personal hearing to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order would be unsustainable since the petitioner had superannuated and the issue of dismissal, therefore, would not even arise for consideration. POONAM DEVI 2014.08.29 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2012 -3-
A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that a decision to dismiss the petitioner was taken on 28.6.2007 but it required concurrence/approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission and, thus, the matter was referred to the Commission vide letter dated 24.7.2007 which concurrence was received on 9.10.2007 and the order of dismissal, thus, passed on 6.11.2007 making the dismissal effective from 30.9.2007 which coincides with the date of superannuation.
These facts would indicate that a decision had been taken well before the date of superannuation of the petitioner and in any eventuality even when the petitioner superannuated, it was made subject to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Besides the date of superannuation cannot be imparted any undue importance as the Department would have no choice considering the fact that with the efflux of time, the petitioner had approached the said date and the question of retaining him beyond the date of superannuation was obviously not permissible. The petitioner abdicated his responsibilities in the year 1984 and without any plausible explanation remained away from his duties for over more than a decade which under no circumstances could have been condoned.
Amazingly, it is the respondents, who created a situation of sorts by permitting the petitioner to rejoin. In fact, it is the officer who permitted the petitioner to join, who should be proceeded against for having showered such undue benefit on the petitioner when the facts were glaring enough to warrant a dismissal order straight-away of course after observing the niceties of law.
POONAM DEVI2014.08.29 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.W.P. No. 7722 of 2012 -4-
The reply would also indicate that the petitioner was issued a chargesheet in April, 1989 and a letter had been sent to him on 7.5.1989. The Enquiry officer, who went into the charges, clearly established the petitioner to be guilty of dereliction of duty and abandoning his assignment without any justifiable reasons. No flaw has been shown in the process adopted by the respondents. Therefore, in the given set of circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service is wholly justified. The petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
Keeping in view the fault committed by the Officer who permitted the petitioner to rejoin in 1998, he should be proceeded against.
Let the officer's name and status be furnished to the Court within a period of two weeks from today and action be initiated against him.
Office is directed to list the case on 11.9.2014.
August 22, 2014 ( MAHESH GROVER )
poonam JUDGE
POONAM DEVI
2014.08.29 11:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document