IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: CWP No.5608 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : April 16,2009 Barjinder Singh .......Petitioner versus Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The facts in short are that the petitioner joined his service as LDC in 1970 in the respondent department. He was promoted as UDC in 1987 after passing Departmental Examination. In 1998, he submitted an application for permission to go abroad. He was served with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty from 19-10-1998 onwards. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 21-04-2005 holding the petitioner guilty of remaining willfully absent from duty for the period from 19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003 without sanction of leave. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 16-05-2005 against the enquiry report. When his representation was not decided, he filed O.A. No. 55-PB of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 04-02-2009. Hence, the present petition CWP No.5608 of 2009 -2- seeking quashing of the order dated 16-11-2005 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been awarded penalty of “censure” as provided in rule 11(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules and the period of alleged absence from duty from 19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003 has been treated as unauthorized absence from duty and thereby, seeking direction to treat the period of absence from 19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003 as leave of the kind due and consider his case for promotion. In the present case, the petitioner is trying his luck too far. It is a case where permission was not granted to him to visit U.S.A due to the fact that he had already visited U.S.A in the same financial year and also due to exigencies of work. The petitioner was conveyed the refusal of the competent authority but the same was received back as his tenant- Ravinder Kaur informed that the petitioner was out of station. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted. As per the enquiry report, he was held guilty of being absent for the period from19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003. Penalty of “censure” was imposed upon him and was marked absent for the period 19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003, which entails loss of pay and allowances and break in service. No appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the award of punishment. He is now aggrieved with the punishment as it has affected his promotion aspects. However, we agree with the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal and find no reason to interfere with the same. The petitioner got away easily with the punishment of censure and also held absent for the period 19-10-1998 to 28-01-2003. He cannot escape from the affect on his promotional aspect on account of forfeiture of past service. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there can be no break in service under Fundamental Rules 17 (1), whereas, the break in service is only under Fundamental Rules 17-A which has not been invoked by the disciplinary authority. CWP No.5608 of 2009 -3- In the present circumstances, we do not feel that the non mention of the provision Fundamental Rules 17-A in the order will change the complexion of the case at hand. He was held absent for almost four years. It is admitted that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation against the enquiry report and due opportunity was granted to him before the Enquiry Officer. There is no violation of principles of natural justice in this case and have no valid ground to interfere in the well reasoned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE April 16, 2009 gurpreet