CWP No. 13270 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13270 of 2008 Date of Decision : 10.12.2009 Vijay Verma .......... Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the orders Annexure P-2 & P-3 vide which the competent authority rejected the earned leave applied by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order vide which the Executive Engineer, who sanctioned his leave, had withdrawn the order subsequently and rejected the leave application. The petitioner while working Sub Divisional Clerk applied for leave on 20.11.2007 for the period 30.11.2007 to 7.1.2008 and 10.1.2008 to 23.1.2008. The petitioner in anticipation that his leave will be sanctioned left the station. CWP No. 13270 of 2008 2 The Chief Administrator, HUDA took up the matter and his leave was rejected. However, on the request made by the petitioner the Executive Engineer, who was head of the office, where the petitioner was employed, sanctioned the leave vide order dated 29.5.2008. However, on matter being brought to the notice of the Chief Administrator, HUDA, the orders sanctioning leave were recalled and his leave was ordered to be rejected. The petitioner was treated as absent from duty. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to challenge these orders primarily on the plea that it was the Executive Engineer, who was competent authority to sanction the leave, and he had sanctioned the leave, therefore, the petitioner could not be treated as absent from duty, nor salary for the month of December recovered. Notice of the writ petition was issued. The respondents contested the writ petition. With the written statement Memo No. 2877 dated 5.12.2007 has been attached, which reads as under :- “On the above noted subject it is inform you that you are absent from duties continuously since 30.11.2007 without any sanction & without any reason due to your continuous absence the office works suffering badly. You are therefore directed to submit your explanation within 2 days from the date of receipt of this letter that why you should not be treated as absent from duty and why not your salary of the month of December, 2007 may not be stopped otherwise disciplinary action will be taken against you. Treat it as MOST URGENT.” The reading of the order Annexure R-1 showed that an option CWP No. 13270 of 2008 3 was given to the petitioner to forgo his salary for the month of December, 2007 or in the alternative to face the enquiry. In view of the order Annexure R-1, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner, opted to forgo his salary for the period of his absence, instead of facing departmental enquiry. The stand taken by the petitioner is in consonance with the option given by the respondents. The stand taken by the petitioner is contested by the learned counsel for the respondents, on the ground that, the petitioner did not agree to proposal within the period stipulated, which resulted in issuance of second show cause notice calling upon him as to why departmental proceedings be not initiated against him. The very fact that the penalty of recovery of salary for the period of absence has been proposed by the respondents, and stand accepted by the petitioner, it would be unfair to all the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry. This action would also be hit by principle of double jeopardy. It is otherwise equitable to accept the offer made by the petitioner to forgo his salary for the period of absence, as the leave applied was for a cause beyond the control of the petitioner, and only fault was that petitioner availed leave without getting it sanctioned in advance. This writ petition is disposed of upholding the order regarding recovery of salary for the period of absence, and by restraining the respondents proceeding against the petitioner departmentally for absence from duty, on the principle of double jeopardy. No costs. 10.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE