Dismissed

Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013CWP/12013/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this write petition, the petitioner challenged his dismissal from service citing lack of natural justice and ex-parte proceedings. The single-judge bench dismissed the writ, holding that statutory procedures were followed, the petitioner admitted prolonged absence abroad without intimation, and equity did not favour interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order dated 09.03.2001 confirming dismissal from service stands upheld.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 12013 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 12013 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision : May 29, 2013

Charanjit Singh

.... PETITIONER

Vs.

State of Punjab and others

¶10

..... RESPONDENTS

¶11

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present : Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 09.03.2001 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from service for absence from duty.

¶15

It has been asserted that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 14.09.1966. He applied for Ex-India leave for three months w.e.f. 31.07.1987, which was duly sanctioned. However, he was not relieved. Petitioner thereafter, submitted an application for premature retirement and proceeded abroad. He thereafter returned back in the year 2013 and submitted an application dated 07.03.2013

¶16

CWP No. 12013 of 2013

¶17

¶18

for release of his dues on account of he having been prematurely retired as he had already moved an application for such benefit prior to he having gone abroad. It is thereafter that the petitioner was intimated that his services have been terminated vide order dated 09.03.2001 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner contends that the said order of dismissal from service has been passed by the respondents without complying with the principles of natural justice especially when the petitioner was not intimated about the factum of nonacceptance of the application for premature retirement nor was he served with the charge-sheet and the departmental proceedings initiated against him have been conducted by the respondents exparte. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain.

¶19

This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the facts, as have been narrated in the order dated 09.03.2001 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service. It is apparent that the procedure, as prescribed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1970, has been duly complied with. As a matter of fact, a public notice was also issued in the newspaper Daily Ajit dated 27.03.1997 directing the petitioner to appear in the departmental enquiry within a period of one month. When he did not respond, the department had no option but to proceed against him ex-parte. In the enquiry, which was held against the petitioner, it was proved that

¶20

CWP No. 12013 of 2013

¶21

¶22

the petitioner was absent from duty without leave and the order of dismissal from service was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, which is in accordance with law. The factum that the petitioner had gone abroad in the year 1987 has been admitted by the petitioner himself in the writ petition. It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner returned back only in the year 2013 and thereafter, made an effort to enquire from the respondents with regard to the fate of his service, which clearly indicates that the petitioner had been absent from duty without intimation. Equity also is not in favour of the petitioner which would persuade this Court to interfere in the order of dismissal dated 09.03.2001 (Annexure P-3).

¶23

The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶24

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

¶25

May 29, 2013 pj

Charanjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charanjit Singh 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

Varadraj Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kuldip Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Prajakta Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jasbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mohammad Halim Vs Chandigarh Administration and Ors.

M/S Amit Traders Vs Punjab Mandi Board and Anr.