IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.13637 /2008 Decided on:16.3.2011 _____________________________________________ Rajesh Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 yes For the petitioner : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Science) on 20.4.1978. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer in the month of July, 1988. He was working in Government Senior Secondary School, Sairi. Hon’ble Deputy Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, visited the school and the petitioner was found absent. In these circumstances, memorandum was issued to the petitioner in the month of September, 2004 to which he filed reply vide Annexure A-2. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 4.6.2005, to which he filed reply on 15.6.2005. The Disciplinary Authority ordered to treat the period of absence, i.e. 24.8.2004 as ‘dies- non’ for all purposes viz. leave, increment and pension. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed on 28.4.2006 after hearing the petitioner. 2. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma has strenuously argued that his client has not been heard before the imposition of penalty and the order passed by the Appellate Authority is neither speaking nor reasoned. According to him, the version of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the orders dated 4.6.2005 and 28.4.2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. Government Senior Secondary School, Sairi was inspected by the Hon’ble Deputy Speaker, Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha on 24.8.2004. Petitioner was found absent. This fact was brought to the notice of the Director, Education. 3 He issued memorandum to the petitioner, to which he filed reply. Thereafter petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 4.6.2005 under rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He was granted ten days time to file the reply. Petitioner filed reply to the same on 15.6.2005. According to him, he was working as officiating Principal in Government Senior Secondary School, Sairi on 23.8.2004. He had to meet the Director, Education on 24.8.2004, he kept his application for casual leave for 24.8.2004 on the table of officiating Principal (Mr. Kaistha), Lecturer, who was on half day’s leave on 23.8.2004 and was to come to the school on 24.8.2004. The officiating Principal informed the petitioner about the non-availability of the application for casual leave. He told the officiating Principal that he has kept his application on the table on 23.8.2004 and he should try to locate the same. According to him, the application was found in the drawer of the Principal’s table in the presence of teachers, mentioned in the representation. This version was not believed by the Disciplinary Authority and vide order dated 9.8.2005, the period of unauthorized absence, i.e. 24.8.2004 was treated as ‘dies non’ for all purposes viz. leave, increment and pension. 4 6. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 9.8.2005 on 3.1.2006. According to the grounds taken in the appeal, the officiating Principal had permitted him and instructed to submit the application to the next senior most Lecturer in the school. He gave this application to Mrs. Shalini Sharma, Lecturer, in front of other teachers and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Deputy Speaker. He was heard in person on 25.4.2005 by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has not believed the version of petitioner. According to his submission before the Principal Secretary (Education), his leave application was hidden by the officiating Principal, being a direct recruit. The petitioner has tried to project that since he was promotee Lecturer, officiating Principal, being direct recruit (School Cadre) has not supported his version. The version put forth by the petitioner is not believable. There was no occasion for his colleague to hide and conceal the application. It is also evident from the facts that the petitioner had left the station without seeking permission and had also not applied for casual leave. He has tried to cover his lapse by shifting the burden on his colleague, who was working as officiating Principal. Petitioner has failed to substantiate by bringing on record any tangible evidence/material that he had furnished 5 the application to the officiating Principal and he had permitted him to leave the station. The plea of the petitioner that the officiating Principal had also hidden the application in the drawer of his table is equally concocted. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 16.3.2011 *awasthi*