IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc.Nos.13817-18-C of 2010 & Regular Second Appeal No.3477 of 2009 Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: Mr.Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Civil Misc.Nos.13817-18-C of 2010 This Regular Second Appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution on 10.2.2010. The application for re-call of the order has now been filed on the ground that the counsel missed the date. This application is filed with a delay of 264 days in moving the application for restoration. Application is also filed for condonation of this delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the delay in filing the application for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC is allowed. The delay in filing the application is condoned. For the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration, which is supported by an affidavit, the order dated 10.2.2010 is re-called the the Regular Second Appeal is restored to its original position. Regular Second Appeal No.3477 of 2009 The appeal is taken up for hearing today. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order dated 6.9.1995 terminating the service of the appellant-plaintiff on account of absence is bad and so is under challenge. The appellant-plaintiff, who was serving as a Driver under the Haryana Roadways, was proceeded against for remaining absent Regular Second Appeal No.3477 of 2009 : 2 : w.e.f.11.9.1992 till the date of his termination. An Enquiry Officer was detailed and a proper enquiry was held. Efforts were made to serve the appellant-plaintiff, but despite receipt of notice, he did not join the enquiry. There is a clear evidence available on record that the Enquiry Officer had sent a notice and then acknowledgment of the receipt of the notice was received back by the Enquiry Officer and is on record as Ex.D5/A. Despite that, the appellant-plaintiff failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer accordingly proceeded with the enquiry and held the charges against the appellant established. The plea about his illness and the illness of his wife was also considered and it was held that the appellant at least could join back duty on 15.5.1995, but he failed to do. All the pleas have been properly considered by the courts below. There is no justifiable reason for the appellant to remain absent. The proper procedure was followed while terminating the services of the appellant. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. January 10, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE