Dismissed¶¶51

Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2025LPA/404/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

willful absence from duty; ex-India leave; deemed resignation condition; unauthorized absence abroad; dismissal from service upheld; request for leave no presumption of sanction; voluntary retirement request rejected; accident-abroad plea rejected; Punjab education department; Lecturer promoted Principal; Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab; LPA-404-2023 (O&M) dismissed affirming Single Judge judgment 27.02.2023 in CWP-10956-2024; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; decided 18.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not report for duty on the expiry of the sanctioned period of leave on 15.08.2011. ¶¶43

Kulwant Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's dismissal from service by order dated 07.02.2014 was bad in law on the ground that, having met with an accident, she was not in a position to join duty and her absence was not willful. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

It is an admitted fact that the appellant did not report for duty on the expiry of the sanctioned period of leave on 15.08.2011.

¶¶43

Ratio / Principle

The appellant never associated herself in the inquiry initiated against her for willful absence from duty.

¶¶43

Key takeaways

The appellant was correctly dismissed from service on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer.ratio¶¶43
It is a settled position that a request for leave cannot lead to a presumption that leave was sanctioned; consequently, the contention that rejection of the appellant's request for extension beyond 15.08.2011 was illegal is devoid of merit.ratio¶¶43
The impugned order dated 07.02.2014 visiting the appellant with the punishment of dismissal from service has been correctly passed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA-404-2023 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 18.02.2025 (Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J.; Bench incl. Lisa Gill, J.) — Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others. Appellant, a Principal (appointed Lecturer, English, 09.07.1990), went to Canada in 2010 although her leave and initial Ex-India leave requests were not sanctioned; Ex-India leave was later sanctioned for 16.08.2010–15.08.2011 subject to conditions of no extension and deemed resignation on failure to report. She did not report on expiry, her extension requests were refused (finally on 09.08.2012), she was charge-sheeted for willful absence, did not join the inquiry, her voluntary-retirement request was rejected on 01.02.2013, and she was dismissed on 07.02.2014. The Division Bench held that a request for leave cannot lead to a presumption of leave being sanctioned, that the dismissal and the rejection of voluntary retirement were correctly passed, and found no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 27.02.2023 in CWP-10956-2024. Delay of 10 days in filing the appeal was condoned (CM-1113-LPA-2024 disposed of); the appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶1

¶2

LPA-404-2023 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

233 CM-1113-LPA-2024 in/and LPA-404-2023 Date of decision: 18.02.2025

¶5

KULWANT KAUR ..APPELLANT

¶6

VS.

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

¶9

Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

¶13

CM-1113-LPA-2024

¶14

Heard.

¶15

For the reasons mentioned in the application and arguments

¶16

addressed, delay of 10 days in filing of appeal is condoned.

¶17

Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶18

LPA-404-2023

¶19

Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed for setting aside judgment

¶20

dated 27.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No.

¶21

10956 of 2024.

¶22

RITU SHARMA 2025.02.28 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

¶24

LPA-404-2023 (O&M)

¶25

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are as

¶26

under:-

¶27

(i) Appellant was appointed as Lecturer in subject of English on 09.07.1990 and promoted to the post of Principal. She applied for leave from 20.03.2010 to 29.03.2015 for self-employment in Canada. This leave was not sanctioned, consequent to which she applied for sanction of Ex-India leave from 26.06.2010 to 15.08.2010 which was also not sanctioned. Nonetheless appellant proceeded on leave and went to Canada. She again applied for Ex-India leave from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2011, which was sanctioned subject to conditions that no extension in leave shall be granted and after expiry of period of leave, she would report for duty and in case she did not join, it would be presumed that employee has resigned from Government service.

¶28

(ii) Admittedly, appellant did not report for duty in August, 2011. It is pleaded that she applied for extension for another period of six months (Annexure P2) on the premise that her daughter has to be admitted in College in January, 2012, she was undergoing coaching classes, therefore, appellant was required to stay abroad. Appellant is then stated to have met with an accident in June 2012 while in Canada and she again sought extension of leave but her request was rejected on 09.08.2012 (Annexure R1/5T). Prior thereto, she was served with charge sheet for willful absence from duty and District Education Officer, Kapurthala was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Despite number of notices issued by Inquiry Officer, appellant did not join the said

¶29

RITU SHARMA 2025.02.28 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

¶31

LPA-404-2023 (O&M)

¶32

proceedings. Appellant tried to join service in January 2013 while also submitting a request for voluntary retirement with deposit of three months salary. Her request for voluntary retirement was rejected by competent authority on 01.02.2013. Punishing authority accepted the finding of Inquiry Officer and vide order dated 07.02.2014, dismissed the appellant from service.

¶33

Aggrieved of abovesaid orders passed by the competent authority, appellant filed CWP-10956-2024. Case made out by the appellant in the writ petition is that as she had met with an accident and had hurt her knee, therefore, she was not in a position to come back to join the duty. It is also the case of appellant that once appellant had submitted an application for voluntary retirement, she could not have been treated as absent as it was not willful and as such, the impugned orders are bad in law.

¶34

Stand of the department before learned Single Judge was that in fact, request made by appellant for grant of leave was never accepted by the Competent Authority and appellant was treated as absent w.e.f. 26.06.2010. Abovesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

¶35

Aggrieved of abovesaid judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed by

¶36

learned Single Judge, present appeal has been filed. The only ground taken before this Court by the appellant is that as appellant had met with an accident, therefore, she was not in a position to join duty and that her absence was not willful, therefore, order dated 07.02.2014 of dismissal from service passed by competent authority, is bad in law.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State has submitted that request made by appellant for grant of leave was never

¶38

RITU SHARMA 2025.02.28 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

¶40

LPA-404-2023 (O&M)

¶41

accepted by the competent authority. It was also the case of learned counsel for respondent that appellant was served with charge sheet in the month of January 2013. However, appellant never joined inquiry proceedings. Request of appellant for voluntary retirement was rejected by the competent authority on 01.02.2013. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in the inquiry, charges were proved against the appellant and on the basis of finding returned by Inquiry Officer, the appellant was rightly dismissed from service on 07.02.2014.

¶42

Heard learned counsel for parties at some length.

¶43

It is an admitted fact that appellant did not report for duty on the expiry of sanctioned period of leave on 15.08.2011. She never associated herself in the inquiry which was initiated against her for willful absence from duty. Appellant was correctly dismissed from service on the basis of findings arrived at by Inquiry Officer. It is a matter of record that appellant at the very outset left for Canada without leave being sanctioned in her favour. Subsequently, Ex-India leave was granted to her from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2011 but still she chose not to return to India. She continued to remain in Canada despite extension of leave not being sanctioned. Argument raised by learned counsel for appellant that once leave was subsequently sanctioned till 15.08.2011, rejection of her request for further extension is illegal, is devoid of any merit. Leave so sanctioned as above till 15.08.2011 was subject to conditions as have been detailed in foregoing paras. It is a settled position that request for leave cannot lead to a presumption of leave being sanctioned. Impugned order dated 07.02.2014 visiting the appellant with punishment of dismissal from service has been correctly passed. Her

¶44

RITU SHARMA 2025.02.28 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

¶46

LPA-404-2023 (O&M)

¶47

request for voluntary retirement has also been correctly rejected by competent authority.

¶48

Taking into consideration the abovesaid facts, we do not find any

¶49

infirmity or illegality in decision dated 27.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge which calls for interference by this Court.

¶50

No other argument has been addressed.

¶51

Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

¶52

(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA) (LISA GILL) JUDGE JUDGE

¶53

February 18, 2025

¶54

Poonam Sharma/rts

¶55

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶56

RITU SHARMA 2025.02.28 12:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 27.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 10956 of 2024, by which the appellant had challenged her dismissal from service dated 07.02.2014 and the rejection of her voluntary-retirement request.¶¶34
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh · 27.02.2023
Prior proceeding
Appellant appointed as Lecturer in English on 09.07.1990 and later promoted to the post of Principal.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Leave applied for 20.03.2010 to 29.03.2015 for self-employment in Canada was not sanctioned; consequent Ex-India leave application for 26.06.2010 to 15.08.2010 was also not sanctioned.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Appellant nonetheless proceeded on leave and went to Canada without sanctioned leave.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Ex-India leave from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2011 sanctioned subject to conditions: no extension to be granted; report for duty on expiry, failing which the employee would be presumed to have resigned from Government service.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Appellant did not report for duty in August 2011; she pleaded an application for six months' extension (Annexure P2) on account of her daughter's college admission and coaching classes.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Appellant stated to have met with an accident in June 2012 while in Canada; her fresh extension request was rejected on 09.08.2012 (Annexure R1/5T).¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet served for willful absence from duty; District Education Officer, Kapurthala appointed as Inquiry Officer; appellant did not join the inquiry despite notices.¶¶28
Prior proceeding
Department's stand before the learned Single Judge: the request for grant of leave was never accepted by the Competent Authority and the appellant was treated as absent w.e.f. 26.06.2010.¶¶34
Prior proceeding
In January 2013 the appellant sought to join service while also submitting a request for voluntary retirement with deposit of three months' salary.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Request for voluntary retirement rejected by the competent authority on 01.02.2013.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Punishing authority accepted the Inquiry Officer's finding and, vide order dated 07.02.2014, dismissed the appellant from service.¶¶32
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved of the aforesaid orders, the appellant filed CWP-10956-2024.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Case made out in the writ petition: having met with an accident and hurt her knee, the appellant was not in a position to come back and join duty.¶¶33
Prior proceeding
Further plea in the writ petition: submission of an application for voluntary retirement meant the absence could not be treated as willful and the impugned orders were bad in law.¶¶33

Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Punjab and Others Vs Kulwinder Singh

Malkit Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Tarlochan Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suraj Hasija Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Punjab and Others Vs Ram Brij and Others

Ajay Jain and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others