Prem Kumar vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others

Ajai Lamba, J.—This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 26.3.2002 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 2 and Order dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No. 1. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join his duties as Peon.

Gist of the matter is that the petitioner was working as a Peon. On 30.10.2000, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Peon to the post of Chowkidar in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh. The petitioner joined duty on 31.10.2000.

It seems that the petitioner was suspended from service vide Order dated 5.1.2001 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, and was charge-sheeted under Order 23.1.2001 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner filed reply (Annexure P-4) to the charge-sheet.

Gist of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner was transferred as Chowkidar in the same scale of post. However, since the nature of duty was not acceptable to the petitioner, he absented from duty on 6.11.2000 intentionally and on a false excuse of illness. Due to continuous absence, work and functioning of the Court was disturbed.

It seems that an enquiry was conducted, report whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. The petitioner joined the enquiry proceedings and examined witnesses. Relevant portion of the enquiry report reads as under:

It has come up in the statement of AW1 that on 6.11.2000 Satish Kumar Process server performed the duty of Chowkidar and AW4 stated that Sh. Prem Kumar has remained absent from his duties from 6.11.2000 onwards and in defence evidence Prem Kumar has placed medical certificate of his father but they are pertaining to the year 1998. Further some medical prescription are of 6.11.2000, 24.11.2000, 6.12.2000 and 5.11.2001 have been placed in evidence regarding the illness of Amar Nath stated to be his father. But in any case, these medical prescription slips pertain to illness of his father, whereas in the statement after the close of defence evidence, the reply given by him was that during the period in question, he underwent epileptic attacks and even in his earned leave application dated 10.11.2000 the reasons of leave was due to illness. Therefore, according to his case, he could not inform the presiding officer due to being his illness but in defence evidence he has placed certificate of his father, this is inconsistent with this case and even otherwise, these medical certificate pertain to the year 1998 whereas the period in question is of the year 2000. As far as his illness, is concerned, there is no medical evidence produced by him to show his illness, therefore, his plea, regarding he being ill from 6.11.2000 till onwards, goes unauthenticated and unproved.

Hence, in my opinion, the charge against Sh. Prem Kumar, Chowkidar, stands proved and it stands established that the excuse put forth by him regarding his illness is false one.

Vide Order, Annexure P-9, the District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service. In Para 11 of the Order (Annexure P-9), K has been recorded that the petitioner, during the course of personal hearing, submitted that he be awarded any other, punishment except punishment of dismissal. Be that as it may, the period of absence and suspension w.e.f. 6.11.2000 till date (26.3.2002) was ordered to be treated as leave of kind due. The petitioner filed service appeal which has been dismissed while noticing all the relevant facts. It has been found as a matter of fact that the petitioner intentionally absented and did not join duty in spite of the fact that his request for leave had been declined.

The impugned orders do not call for their judicial review in so much as the petitioner has been given hearing at every relevant stage of proceedings. The orders are reasoned orders. The misconduct of the petitioner calls for the punishment imposed.

During the course of hearing, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that although he had been compulsorily retired, however, his dues have not been paid.

Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. l and 2, on instructions from Paramjit Singh, Additional English Clerk, from the office of District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, states that the petitioner has not approached the respondents for getting his dues cleared. The petitioner was required to furnish his photographs etc. Formalities have also not been completed.

The Court has been assured that after the petitioner completes the formalities, within 30 days thereof, dues would be cleared and benefits would be released in favour of the petitioner. It has further been pointed out that there are certain recoveries to be effected from the petitioner. The petitioner would be made aware of the same before recovery is effected.

In view of the totality of facts and circumstances, as noticed above, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

It is however made clear that the respondents would abide by their assurance given in Court and dues would be paid to the petitioner, within 30 days of petitioner completing the formalities.