IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11528 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 05, 2010 Roop Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Hardial Singh Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Order dated 31.5.1991 (Annexure P-3). 2. On a perusal of the pleadings, I find that Annexure P-3 is an order passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel contends that it is on account of a clerical error that Annexure P-3 has been shown as challenged. Challenge is to Annexure P-4 which is an office order dated CWP No.11528 of 2010 [2] 1.7.2003 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. Under the circumstances, the petition, on the oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, has been considered as being in challenge to Order dated 1.7.2003 (Annexure P-4). 4. Perusal of Order Annexure P-4 indicates that the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 21.11.1990 vide order passed on the same day, after departmental enquiry on account of his absence from duty for 80 days. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequently, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, vide Order dated 31.5.1991 modified the order of punishment of dismissal to the effect of forfeiture of 3 years’ service with permanent effect. It was further ordered that the appellant shall be reinstated in service and the period spent out of service shall be treated as leave of kind due. 5. Order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was issued on 26.6.1991, copy whereof was endorsed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda alongwith order passed by the said authority for onward transmission/ delivery to the petitioner under proper receipt. The order notices that CWP No.11528 of 2010 [3] order was supplied to the petitioner on 4.7.1991 under his signatures. 6. After receipt of orders by the petitioner, the petitioner failed to join duty. Again the order of appellate authority was conveyed to the petitioner by the office vide Communication dated 22.5.1996. The petitioner was asked to join duty failing which it was to be presumed that the petitioner did not want to join duty. The said communication was also conveyed to the petitioner and the petitioner noted the same on 23.5.1996. The petitioner, however, failed to join duty. It thus transpires that the petitioner failed to join duty after receiving orders of reinstatement on 4.7.1991. 7. The petitioner filed a writ petition to the effect that orders of reinstatement had not been conveyed to him. The petitioner further alleged that he made representations, however, was not allowed to join duty. 8. The effect of impugned order is that since the petitioner failed to join duty within 5 years of his reinstatement, he is not entitled to join duty at this stage. 9. Learned counsel has been given an offer to deposit a particular amount in view of CWP No.11528 of 2010 [4] his assertion that the order of reinstatement had not been conveyed to the petitioner ever. Learned counsel does not accept the offer. A clear statement has not been made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the order of reinstatement had not been served on the petitioner. It thus transpires that the order of reinstatement was served on the petitioner in 1991 and again in the year 1996. 10. On perusal of the order at issue, it transpires that the petitioner did not join duty even though he was reinstated. The order was conveyed to the petitioner repeatedly i.e. on 4.7.1991 and again on 23.5.1996. No reasonable or plausible explanation is coming forth as to the reasons for not joining for such a long period. Learned counsel has not been able to show any rule or regulation which would allow the petitioner the right to join after such a long period. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, in equity or in law. 11. Before parting with the order, I have to observe that it is a very casual filing of writ petition. Even the impugned order has not been correctly mentioned in the petition. 12. No ground for interference in writ CWP No.11528 of 2010 [5] jurisdiction is made out. 13. The petition is dismissed with costs Rs.5,000/-. (AJAI LAMBA) July 05, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?