REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4057 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 23, 2010 Manohar Masih .....Appellant VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force had filed a suit to challenge his dismissal from service ordered on 17.7.2002 on the ground that the order was illegal, null and void. Having failed in his suit and the first appeal, he has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. The appellant was dismissed from service for being absent from duty. During December 2001, the appellant got sanctioned casual leave upto 4.12.2001. As per the pleadings, he fell ill from recurring abdominal pain and, thus, remained under treatment. The Medical Officer advised him complete bed rest and so he could not rejoin his duty on expiry of his casual leave on REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4057 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: 4.12.2001. The appellant would claim that he regularly forwarded his application for extension of leave on medical ground and ultimately became fit to join his duty and was advised by the doctor to do so w.e.f. 21.7.2002. When he was about to join his duty, he received a letter dated 17.7.2002, intimating that he had been dismissed from service. The appellant would term this order to be arbitrary, illegal, null land void and having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. At the outset the counsel would contend that the appellant was dismissed from service without holding any enquiry. Hence, the order was clearly unsustainable. This submission is made completely against the record. It is nothing short of an attempt to mislead the Court. The attention of the counsel accordingly was drawn to part of his own pleadings where he had stated that due to his illness, the plaintiff-appellant could not appear before the Enquiry Officer and so he was dismissed from service. This submission was also contrary to the clear observation and finding recorded in the impugned judgment, showing that through a letter dated 24.12.2001, the appellant was directed to report back for duty. When no reply was received and when the appellant failed to join duty despite numerous letters written to him, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. Even the Enquiry Officer had statedly sent letters to him, informing that enquiry has been commenced and he should join the enquiry. When he did not attend the enquiry even thereafter, the enquiry was concluded, apparently exparte, and the appellant was held guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report, the appellant was dismissed from service. On the face of such findings recorded in the impugned order, the counsel REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 4057 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: could not have the luxury of submitting that the appellant was dismissed without holding enquiry. It may need a notice that submission was that the enquiry was not held and not that the enquiry was not held in a legal and proper manner. Once the attention of the counsel was drawn to the above-noted portion of the record, he could not answer anything and could not further pursue or substantiate his submission. There is no ground made out to hear the submission made as there is no valid ground urged. The Court has rightly observed that having received the order of dismissal on 17.7.2002, the appellant appears to have made an attempt to fabricate record and obtain a medical certificate to justify his absence. There is no substantial question of law, thus, arising in this case. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. April 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE