Regular Second Appeal No.2771 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2771 of 2008 Date of Order: 01.09.2008 Sardara Ram ...Appellant Versus CCS HAU, Hissar and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant, has filed this Regular Second Appeal praying that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below ,namely the Civil Judge (Sr. Division),Hisar, dated 31.11.2005 and the Additional District Judge, Hisar, dated 23.07.2008, dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively be set aside. The appellant filed a suit for declaration praying that as he is a regular employee (Chowkidar) and still in service of the respondents and he is entitled to receive arrears of pay and other benefits from June, 1995. A consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to allow the appellant to join his duties was also prayed. In addition, the appellant prayed for grant of a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from terminating his services. Briefly, stated the appellant was in the service of the respondent University as a Chowkidar since 1965. He did not report for duty after May, 1995 despite repeated reminders. A show cause notice issued under clause 20(9) of Chapter VI of the University Statute was not received by Regular Second Appeal No.2771 of 2008 -2- the appellant. The show cause notice was eventually pasted at his residence, but as it did not elicit any response, his post was declared vacant vide order dated 06.07.1998. On 05.11.1997, the appellant claims to have met the respondents and pleaded that he be allowed retire voluntarily on account of his permanent disability and in his place his son be appointed. As his request was declined, the appellant filed Civil Suit No.679-C dated 24.11.1997. Pursuant to an interim order dated 13.09.2001, passed in that suit, the appellant was directed to get himself medically examined for assessment of his permanent disability. The Disability Certificate, disclosed a disability of 10 per cent on account of pain in back and knee joints of both sides and mild restriction of movements at extremes. The appellant thereafter, withdrew his suit with a view to join his duty, but alleges that the respondents did not allow him to join duty. The appellant, therefore, filed the instant suit. After framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that as the appellant's post had been declared vacant by a valid order, no relief could be granted. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a regular employee since 1965 but on account of an injury to his back- bone, he is permanently disabled. His post, therefore, could not be declared vacant without issuance of a charge-sheet, conduct of an enquiry and without grant of personal hearing. The action by the University in terminating his services is, therefore, illegal and void and the appellant should be deemed to be in service from June, 1995. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned orders. As noticed in the above narrated facts, the appellant abandoned his post and did not report for duty after May, 1995 compelling the Regular Second Appeal No.2771 of 2008 -3- respondent-University to declare his post vacant. This order was preceded by a show cause notice in terms of the relevant rule. The notice was pasted on the appellant's door, but did not elicit any response. The appellant filed a suit, wherein a medical examination disclosed that the disability was only 10 per cent. The appellant withdrew the suit and filed the present suit. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the University declaring the appellant's post vacant. Employees like the appellant, who remain absent from duty without leave are not entitled to any consideration. A regular employee does not have a license to hold his employer to ransom. The order passed by the University declaring the appellant's post vacant does not suffer from the violation of any provisions of the University statutes and none has been printed out. The orders passed by the Courts below are legal and valid as they do not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, requiring interference by this Court. The arguments raised by counsel for the appellant have been considered and dealt with by the appellate court. The concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below do not call for interference. Dismissed. September 1, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE