IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.14621 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.8.2008 Sukhwant Singh -----Petitioner Vs. Central warehousing Corporation New Delhi and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition challenges order dated 20.11.2004, Annexure P.6 imposing the penalty of removal from service. The said order has been affirmed in appeal and review on 10.5.2007 and 9.5.2008 respectively. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the year 1991. He applied for leave from 11.6.1998 to 18.6.1998, which was sought to be extended upto 18.8.1998. Neither the extension was accepted nor the petitioner applied for leave after 18.8.1998. On 13.5.1999, charge sheet was given to the petitioner CWP No.14621 of 2008 for absence from duty. After conducting enquiry, order for removal from service was passed. A perusal of order of removal shows that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for a period of more than five years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet was not proceeded and was dropped and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 4. It remains undisputed that after 18.6.1998, neither leave was sanctioned nor the petitioner joined upto 17.5.2004. In view of such long unauthorized absence, the petitioner has been removed from service after giving show cause notice. 5. A perusal of impugned order shows that absence of the petitioner was in violation of Regulation 40(vii) of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986. Address given by the petitioner was incorrect and letter dated 25.8.1998 was sent at the address available but the petitioner failed to respond or give any fresh address. He was asked to resume duties vide publication dated 4.9.1998 and to explain his absence but no reply was received. Another publication was inserted in the Tribune (Hindi, English and Punjabi) on 28.12.1998 but there was no response. Memorandum dated 10/13.5.1999 was also served on the petitioner to which he did not reply. Enquiry report was sent to him on 25.4.2001 at his last known address but he was not found available. Last insertion in the newspaper in Hindi, English and 2 CWP No.14621 of 2008 Punjabi Tribune was published on 22.3.2002 but again the petitioner did not respond. With these findings, show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Departmental proceedings were never dropped as claimed. 6. It is well settled that when a person is unauthorisedly absent for a long period, he is not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was employed as Chowkidar and he remained absent from service for five years and 10 months without showing any justification. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 and State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ayub Naz, AIR 2006 SC 856, Paras 9 and 18. 7. No ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 20, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3