Regular Second Appeal No.3501 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.3501 of 1986. Date of decision:9.5.2008. Surjit Kaur. ...Appellant. Versus Punjab State and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: None for the appellant. Mr. S. S. Sahu, AAG Punjab. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This is an appeal directed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1986 passed by Shri A.B.Singh Wasu, the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1985 delivered by Shri G.S.Sandhu, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar was dismissed. Briefly stated Surjit Kaur plaintiff was employed as Lady Regular Second Appeal No.3501 of 1986. -2- Health Visitor in C.H.C. Centre, Hussainpura (Amritsar) and continued to work till 11.9.1972 when she was transferred to Family Planning in Medical College, Amritsar vide order dated 7.7.1972 of Director Health Services. After having been relieved from CMH Centre, Hussainpura on 11.9.1972, the plaintiff joined her duty at Medical College, Amritsar on 12.10.1972. Thereafter, she applied for two days' casual leave from 14th to 16th of October, 1972. On 18.10.1972, she submitted another application for leave from 18.10.1972 to 17.11.1972. She again submitted another application for leave from 18.11.1972 to 17.12.1972. None of these leave applications was sanctioned. Her absence from duty was reported to the Director, Health Services, Punjab who asked the plaintiff to join her duties till 15.4.1973 positively failing which steps will be taken to terminate her services. In spite of that, the plaintiff remained absent. Ultimately, she filed a suit in the Court of Shri Lakhbir Singh, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar on 23.11.1973. On the statement made in the Court that the plaintiff was still in service, the plaintiff withdrew that suit. On 28.10.1976, Director Health Services issued another letter directing the plaintiff to join her duties at PHC Chakhowal but she did not join her duties. Ultimately, after enquiry, her services were terminated vide order dated 15.6.1979 passed by respondent No.2. The defendants filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No.3501 of 1986. -3- The following issues were framed by the trial Court;- 1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.6.1979 passed by defendant No.2 is wrong, illegal etc. as alleged in the plaint?OPP. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form as alleged in the preliminary objection of the written statement in para Nos.1 and 3 ?OPP. 3. Whether no valid or legal notice U/S 80 CPC was served on the defendants before filing the present suit? 4. Relief. The plaintiff examined herself as her own witness as PW-1 and closed her evidence. The defendants examined Gurbans Singh Gill as DW-1. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of evidence, returned findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 against the plaintiff. However, issue No.3 was decided against the defendants. In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.1985 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar. The plaintiff preferred first appeal which was heard by Shri A.B.Singh Wasu, the then Additional District Judge and ultimately, the appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.7.1986. Regular Second Appeal No.3501 of 1986. -4- None has appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of record, it is revealed that the plaintiff/appellant absented herself from 14.10.1972 without sanction of leave and thereafter in spite of number of opportunities granted to the plaintiff, she did not join her duties. She filed civil suit in which the respondents offered to join her duty but in spite of that, the plaintiff has not joined her duty at her place of posting. The continued absence from duty for seven years without sanction of leave is itself is a serious mis- conduct, in view of authority reported as Maan Singh Versus Union of India and others, 2003(2) S.C.T. 84. Otherwise also, it is a pure question of fact regarding her absence. There is concurrent finding of both the Courts below that the plaintiff absented herself from her duty without any sufficient cause. That, being a finding of fact, cannot be challenged in Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law has arisen for determination by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared and the files of both the Courts be returned after due compliance. May 9,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge