Ankur Sood vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner was recruited purely on contractual basis as a Computer Teacher in the year 2009 under the Information and Communication Technology Project, State of Punjab. The petitioner absented from duty w.e.f. 04.05.2010 without getting his leave duly sanctioned. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to him which was responded to by the petitioner furnishing the reason that on account of an accident suffered by his maternal uncle, he had to devote time for treatment of such relative at DMC, Ludhiana and then had to proceed to Mumbai. Having considered the reasoning furnished in the reply, the petitioner was apparently called upon to rejoin duties immediately but still the petitioner did not come present. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 20.08.2010 passed by the Director General (School Education) Cum Chief Executive Officer, Punjab Information and Communication Technology Education Society (Annexure P-5), his services stand terminated w.e.f. 04.05.2010.

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-5).

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner having submitted his reply to the show cause notice, had never been called upon to rejoin his duties and would argue that to such extent, the impugned order is factually incorrect. Counsel would contend that the petitioner was always willing to join back his duties and after passing of the impugned order dated 20.08.2010, he had submitted enormous representations and had even got a legal notice served upon the respondent-department.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the present writ petition.

The impugned order specifically notices that the petitioner inspite of having remained absent from duty, had been issued a show cause notice and having considered the reply furnished by the petitioner had been called upon to rejoin duties and still the petitioner had not come present in the school. Such factual assertion disputed by the learned counsel raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 was duly served upon the petitioner without any delay. The present writ petition has been preferred after a delay of almost 3 years. The only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioner is not interested in continuing on the post of Computer Teacher. That apart, the impugned order has been passed strictly in terms of agreement and the terms and conditions contained therein in pursuance to which he was initially offered an appointment on a contractual basis. There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-5). The civil writ petition is accordingly dismissed.