The single judge condoned a delay in filing an intra-court appeal. The appellant, a former government employee dismissed for unauthorized absence over 17 years, challenged the dismissal. The court held the appeal devoid of merits and dismissed it in limine.
Appeal dismissed in limine; Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
����������������������������������������� �����������
��������������������������� �!��"�#!�$��%��&'
Date of Decision: 04.10.2018
Swami Nath …..Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others …..Respondents
����&(� ���)����&���������+������&�����,�������������� ���)����&��������������������,�������
Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
+������&�����,��������������%����'
�&�����-!../�����"�#!�$
Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 8 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
��������� �!��"�#!�$
This intra court appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.08.2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the order dated 26.04.2013 dismissing him from service.
Appellant5petitioner was employed as Baildar on 31.03.1993 in Provisional Works Division (B&R) Branch, Panchkula, where he worked till 11.06.1996 and thereafter his services were transferred to Bridge Construction Division, PWD (B&R) Branch, Haryana, Chandigarh. He
RAVINDER SHARMA 2018.11.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
���������������������������������������������� ������������������ ��
continuously remained absent from duty from 01.11.1996 onwards. A charge sheet dated 02.01.2013 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on the allegations that he had remained absent from duty w.e.f. 20.02.2003 without any justifiable cause was served upon him. A reply dated 22.03.2013 was alleged to have been submitted by the appellant5petitioner to the charge sheet wherein it has been mentioned that he was not in proper senses and was not medically fit for which he was undergoing long treatment and thus he was unable to attend his duties. It is relevant to point out that even prior to submission of reply dated 22.03.2013, notices dated 17.03.2003, 28.03.2003, 08.04.2003, 13.05.2003, 02.07.2003, 04.08.2003, 30.11.2004, 27.07.2005, 22.08.2005, 21.12.2005, 01.06.2006 and 12.09.2006 were issued to him all of which were returned back with the remarks of the post office that whereabouts are not known as he left the address without intimation. After the alleged reply to the charge sheet was submitted, final notice dated 04.02.2013 was issued where under an opportunity of personal hearing on 26.02.2013 was afforded to him. However, he did not appear on the said date nor came forward to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. Resultantly, order dated 26.04.2013 was passed dismissing him from service.
������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������
RAVINDER SHARMA 2018.11.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
���������������������������������������������� ������������������ ��
�������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������� �������������
����������������������������� ���������� ����������� ��� !"#� Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√
RAVINDER SHARMA 2018.11.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the dismissal from service should be allowed.
Whether the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal required condonation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Swami Nath
State of Haryana and others
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
