IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.2444 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.2.2011 Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Transport Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioner be paid the salary and other allowances for the period during which he remained absent. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was proceeded against for having wilfully remained absent from duty for a period of one year which period was explained by him as being attributed to a medical condition. The petitioner was reinstated. He now makes grievance that he be paid for the period he remained absent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The authorities have clearly found that the petitioner had intentionally remained absent for a period of one year and therefore by taking purely a lenient view by treating the period from C.W.P.No.2444 of 2011 -2- 5.2.2000 till the date of passing of the impugned order as period of earned leave, no amount was paid. The record also reveals that the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally for having misappropriated Rs.2,200/-. An inquiry against him is pending. Thus, upon due consideration, there is neither any legal infirmity in the impugned order nor is there equitable right in favour of the petitioner. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 9.2.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss