Dr. Lakhvirpal Singh vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anarid, J.—Unsuccessful plaintiff Dr. Lak-hvirpal Singh, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the first appellate Court which affirmed the judgment and decree dated 14.6.1996 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh, vide which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 21.1.1999 passed by the Department vide which he was dismissed from service is illegal, void and has no effect on the service of the plaintiff and that the continues to hold the post of Veterinary Officer under defendant No. 1 i.e. State of Punjab with all the privileges of the service.

The suit was contested mainly by the State of Punjab on the ground that the plaintiff remained absent from duty after the expiry of leave. He was duly charge-sheeted. The charge-sheet was sent to him and the report of the postal authorities was that the "addressee had left India". Thereafter, the charge sheet was got published in the newspaper. The plaintiff did not participate in the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer gave the report against the plaintiff and on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer ultimately dismissal order dated 21.1.1991 was passed. Both the Courts went against the plaintiff and not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the present appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case.

The learned counsel Shri Kohli vehemently submitted that there is no proof on the record that plaintiff was ever served with the charge-sheet. Since there is no valid service upon the plaintiff, therefore, the impugned order darted 21.1.1991 is a nullity in the eye of law. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant relies upon a Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as 1998 Labour and Industrial Cases 3021, Union of India and others v. Dina Nath Shantaram Karekar 1999(1) SCT 667 (SC) where it was observed that when the registered cover containing the charge-sheet has been returned to the Department with the report "not found", such a document cannot be legally treated to have been served on employee and that the authority should have made further efforts to serve it. It was observed that the theory of communication cannot be invoked by the Department and actual service is essential since the delinquent official has to submit his reply. The judgment of the cited case is distinguishable on facts. From the record of the lower Court it categorically emerges out that the official left India without address. Under the departmental rules, it was obligatory upon the plaintiff to inform the department about his address before going abroad. There is nothing on the record to show that plaintiff before leaving the country had informed the department about his address. Also it is evident from the record of the trial Court that the Department took all essential steps for the service of the charge-sheet and the charge-sheet was then got published in the newspaper also for the advantage of the plaintiff. Still he did not participate nor he took any steps for setting aside the ex parte proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. He did not participate in the inquiry and now the plaintiff-cannot be allowed to take the advantage of his own wrong.

It was then submitted on.behalf of the appellant that the punishment awarded to the appellant is very severe as he had completed more than 21 years of service and the Punishing authority could prematurely retire him. Civil Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal over the order passed by the punishing authority so long the punishment is within the provisions of the rules.

Dismissal from service is one of the major penalties provided under the rules and if the punishing authority had adopted it, I cannot find any fault in it. It is a case of absence from duty by a responsible officer and in my opinion, if the punishment of dismissal has been awarded, it cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

Appeal dismissed.