Dismissed

Surinder Kaur Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 May 2013LPA/158/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant challenged the conversion of her removal from service to compulsory retirement, arguing for a rewriting of her penalty. The High Court disagreed, holding that after being absent without sanction without valid leave, she acted contrary to service rules, and the Single Judge did not err in not interfering with the departmental award, relying on the princi

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on merits; the application for condonation of delay did not survive.

Surinder Kaur Randhawa Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

LPA No. 158 of of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 158 of of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: May 20, 2013

¶5

Surinder Kaur Randhawa .....Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

.......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH

¶10

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the reporter or not ?

¶14

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

R.P. NAGRATH, J.

¶16

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant against the order dated 31.08.2012 of learned Single Judge in CWP No. 11436 of 2010 dismissing her prayer to convert punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement.

¶17

Briefly the facts are that the appellant submitted application to her Controlling Officer for ex-India leave from 01.05.2001 to 31.10.2001. The appellant undertook to attach copy of the passport and visa in support of her leave application, as the said documents were statedly lying in the Embassy in Delhi. But she did not submit those documents and proceeded

¶18

LPA No. 158 of of 2013

¶19

-2-

¶20

to avail ex-India leave without prior sanction. The leave was ultimately declined. The appellant thereafter kept on sending applications for extension of leave from time to time. The appellant was charge sheeted for disciplinary action and on the basis of findings in departmental enquiry, punishing authority passed the order of her removal from service and by a speaking order dated 06.12.2010 (Annexure R2/T) her appeal was also dismissed.

¶21

The contention of the appellant is based on a judgment of this Court in Pushpa Manocha v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 12535 of 2007 decided on 14.08.2008. The petitioner in that case while working as Principal of School committed certain financial irregularities and departmental proceedings culminated into an order of dismissal. Taking note of the fact that petitioner in that case rendered 22 years of service, this Court found that the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate and thus the punishment was converted into penalty of compulsory retirement.

¶22

The appellant in the instant appeal joined service of the Department on 17.06.1983 and as the facts would reveal she can be considered to have served for 17 years as she started absenting from duty without sanction of leave w.e.f. 01.05.2001. From the enquiry report Annexure P-21, it is quite clear that prior to 1.5.2001, the appellant remained on earned leave from 1.4.2001 to 30.4.2001 and after submitting application for ex-India leave on 1.5.2001, the appellant did not come to the office. She submitted joining report only on 21.11.2003.

¶23

It would, thus, be seen that the appellant remained absent from

¶24

LPA No. 158 of of 2013 -3-

¶25

duty continuously for about two years and that too went abroad without prior sanction of leave. This attitude of an employee definitely creates indiscipline in the entire cadre and the administrative machinery. The speaking order passed in appeal by the appellate authority (Annexure R2/T) would show that even subsequent to the period in question the appellant went abroad by applying for ex-India leave from 15.05.2004 to 15.11.2009 for five years. The service rules entitle an employee to the grant of pensionary benefits but if the employee after rendering a few years of service conducts in the manner the petitioner has done, the employee should presumably be aware of the consequences that would follow. Pension is not a bounty but has to be earned as per service rules.

¶26

We agree with the view of learned Single Judge which is also based on settled principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in not interfering in the discretion exercised by the Departmental Authorities in awarding punishment on proof of the charge amounting to misconduct.

¶27

The instant appeal is thus dismissed.

¶28

As the appeal has been heard and dismissed on merits, the application for condoning 102 days in filing the appeal does not survive.

¶29

( SURYA KANT ) ( R.P. NAGRATH ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

May 20, 2013 jk

Surinder Kaur Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dewan Chand Vs Punjab State etc.

Chandigarh Administration and Ors. Vs Avinder Kumar and Anr.

M/S a P Papper Mills Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gobinder Kaur Vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunala Nd Ors.

Ankur Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Anr.