Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:18 the Catering Division, yet continued to sign and forward absentee statements for the period between 16th March, 2001 to 15th February, 2002 as if he remained Incharge, Noida Information Counter, routing them directly to the salary section without countersignature or verification, thereby drawing salary despite not reporting for duty.

5.7. The Court, however, noticed that in the appeal, the Petitioner had taken a specific stand that the transfer order dated 1 st March, 2001 was not served on him and that after recovery from treatment, he continued to work This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/02/2026 at 20:44:18 at Noida and sign absentee statements under an honest belief of continued posting. The Court held that this stand was relevant and could bear on Charge II and the penalty. Since the Appellate Authority had not returned any conclusion on this stand, the appellate order dated 30 th May, 2007 was set aside and the appeal was remanded for fresh consideration limited to that aspect. The penalty order dated 18th September, 2006 was expressly left undisturbed.

Shri Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia admitted that he had written that letter and he also acknowledged about his signature. But, he also submitted to the Board that he was admitted in the Hospital and it was written while he was in Hospital.

Shri Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia further informed the Board that he used to send absentee statement directly to Finance Division in view of his powers as he had the approval for the purpose from the Chairman. But, he failed to produce any documentary evidence for the same. Shri Pradeep Singh Ahluwalia was again asked to intimate whether he was following the office procedure correctly. In reply, he stated that he always deals directly to curtail the process without following the procedure.

37. The Petitioner also asserts that he continued to function at Noida and that he signed absentee statements in that capacity. That assertion rests on the same foundation as the non-service plea. Once the Petitioner knew of transfer to Catering Division, the continuation narrative loses its anchor. Even if the Petitioner suffered ill-health, the proper course was to regularise leave, seek posting accommodation, or report and obtain direction. It was not open to treat oneself as continuing Incharge of an office that stood closed and to route absentee statements directly to the salary section without verification.