CWP No.777 of 2009 (O & M) : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 24.07.2009 Soni Kumar ... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. BS Rathee,Advocate,for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Singhawal, Advocate, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J, (Oral): C.M No.12126 of 2009 is allowed. Replication is taken on record. CWP No.777 of 2009 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.09.2008 (Annexure P-11) and discharge certificate dated 13.09.2009 (Annexure P- 15) whereby the petitioner was discharged from service as a Defence Security Corps. He has further prayed for a direction to permit him to rejoin the duty. The petitioner initially joined the Indian Army as a Clerk on 29.09.1987. He retired from the Indian Army after completion of 19 years of service with exemplary character on 30.09.2006. The petitioner was re- enrolled on 09.04.2008 in Defence Security Corps. He was deputed for re- orientation training at DSE Centre, Cannanore. It is alleged that the CWP No.777 of 2009 (O & M) : 2 : petitioner received a telephonic message on 12.06.2008 from his home that his younger brother was seriously injured in a scuffle. Another message was received on 13.06.2008 regarding the involvement of petitioner's younger brother and his two minor sons in First Information Report No.77 dated 13.06.2008. The petitioner applied for one month leave on compassionate grounds. However, only six day's leave was allowed to the petitioner with effect from 16.06.2008 to 22.06.2008 with prefix and suffix. It is stated that the journey time for to and fro itself takes six days. The petitioner after proceeding on leave requested for extension of 15 days vide letter dated 21.06.2008. However, no leave was extended. The petitioner again applied for extension of leave vide telegram dated 25.06.2008. Another extension was sought on 10.07.2008. On 15.07.2008, respondent No.3 issued an Apprehension Roll in respect of the petitioner for his absence without leave from 23.06.2008. The petitioner joined the duty in DSE Training Centre, Cannanore on 08.08.2008 on his own. He was issued a tentative charge sheet for absence from duty without leave on 11.08.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, was summarily tried for absence from duty and was awarded punishment for 28 day's rigorous imprisonment and 14 days pay as fine on 21.08.2008. However, remission was awarded to him in respect to the aforesaid punishment on 01.09.2008. The respondents, thereafter, decided to discharge the petitioner from service vide noting initiated on 31.09.2008 (Annexure P-9). It was decided to serve a Show Cause Notice upon the petitioner. Consequently, Show Cause Notice dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure P-5) was served upon the petitioner who submitted his reply on 04.09.2008. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the respondents passed order dated 13.09.2008, discharging him CWP No.777 of 2009 (O & M) : 3 : from service under Army Rule 13 (3) Item No.IV on the ground of unlikely to become an efficient soldier. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the discharge order. The aforesaid appeal stands decided vide order dated 05.01.2009 (Annexure R-3). The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents took a decision to discharge the petitioner on 01.08.2008 and after taking a decision, a Show Cause Notice has been issued. I have perused the order Annexure P-11. It is only a noting whereunder after giving history of the absence of the petitioner, the respondents took a decision to initiate action against him for discharge from service and ordered to serve Show Cause Notice. Whenever a Show Cause Notice is issued, a effective decision is to be taken. I do not find any fault with the same. Rule 13 (4) requires issuance of a Show Cause Notice before passing any order. A Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner which has been duly replied by the petitioner. It is only on consideration of the reply that the impugned order of discharge has been passed. I find no fault in the impugned order passed by the respondents. Dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of discharge is likely to debar the petitioner from future employment. Discharge under Army Rule 13 (4) does not debar the petitioner from seeking re-employment in any concern. 24.04.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUEGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES