Dismissed

Santosh Jaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2009RSA/2009/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed an appeal against concurrent judgments dismissing a suit challenging dismissal from service. The court rejected arguments regarding procedural defects and natural justice, upholding dismissal based on unauthorized unjustified absence of years, which was deemed a ground for such penalty.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Santosh Jaura Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

::1::

¶2

R.S.A No. 2009 of 2009 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

R.S.A No. 2009 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : September 03, 2009

¶5

Santosh Jaura,

¶6

...... Appellant (s)

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and others,

¶9

...... Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶12

¶13

Present : Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶14

¶15

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶16

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶17

**3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *****

¶18

AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)

¶19

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant challenging the dismissal order dated 17.11.1999.

¶20

A few dates may be noticed. The appellant had applied for leave first on 21.10.1994 and then on 20.1.1995 up to 30.4.1995. She, however, never joined back. Ultimately, as mentioned above, the dismissal order was passed against her after holding an inquiry and finding that (i) the appellant had gone on unauthorized leave and that (ii) she was doing private practice. The instant suit was filed on 17.1.2003.

¶21

The following questions have been proposed :-

¶22

::2::

¶23

R.S.A No. 2009 of 2009 (O&M)

¶24

“ a) Whether the punishing authority could inflict the punishment against the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Punjab Civil Service (P&A) Rules of 1970 ?

¶25

b) Whether the supply of copy of inquiry report and disagreement note, is mandatory ? If so, what is its effect on non supply thereof ?

¶26

c) Whether the punishing authority is justified in not supplying with the documents prayed for those mentioned in the list of documents and still proceeding with the inquiry ?

¶27

d) Whether the learned Courts below were required to draw adverse inference for documents not produced on record ?

¶28

e) Whether the punishing authority was justified in not providing opportunity of personal hearing before passing order of punishment ?

¶29

f) Whether subsequent cancellation of earned leave, and consequent absence from duty was sufficient to inflict punishment of dismissal from service?

¶30

g) Whether the punishing authority was legally justified to consider documents not supplied, for passing punishment order ?”

¶31

It would be seen that questions No.(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) all relate to the factual aspect of supply of various documents. Both the Courts below have held that all the documents were supplied/made

¶32

::3::

¶33

R.S.A No. 2009 of 2009 (O&M)

¶34

available to the appellant. Question No. (a) is a question of law, and that part of question No. (b) which relates to the disagreement note is also a question of law. However, it may be noticed that disagreement between the punishing authority and the Inquiry Officer was in respect of the findings regarding private practice. As mentioned above, the appellant has been dismissed both on the ground of doing private practice as also of unauthorized absence. Even if the questions of law proposed are decided in favour of the appellant yet it has to be seen whether the punishment order is justified on other grounds. From a conspectus of the dates mentioned above, the unauthorized absence of the appellant is writ large.

¶35

Counsel for the appellant has raised yet another argument with regard to disproportionality of the punishment. He has argued that in case the ground of private practice is not to be accepted then absence can never be a ground for effecting the extreme penalty of dismissal.

¶36

In my opinion, unauthorized unjustified absence especially that of years is always a ground for dismissal. Both the Courts below have observed certain mitigating factors like length of service etc where this extreme penalty has been substituted with a lesser penalty of compulsory retirement/removal from service etc. However, in the present case, apart from this bald argument, nothing has been brought on record to show why in the circumstances of this case the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the infraction.

¶37

Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶38

( AJAY TEWARI ) September 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'

¶39

R.S.A No. 2009 of 2009 (O&M) ::4::

Santosh Jaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Jaura v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs Anita Bhargav and Anr.

Kulbir Singh Vs Narinder Singh Gill & Ors.

M/S Bahadur Singh and Co. Vs Karnail Singh

M/S Charan Poultry Feeds Vs Shanti

Prem Parkash Mehta Vs Darshan Kumar

Dalip Singh and Others Vs Jaswant Singh and Others