IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 693 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2009 Sat Pal ......Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Delay of 16 days in filing and 35 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned subject to just exceptions. 2. The appellant was working as Fitter Coolie in Public Health Department. He served from 1980 to 27.12.2004. Charge-sheet dated 22.2.2002 was served upon him alleging that he was habitual of remaining absent from duty, apart from being negligent and disobeying the orders of his superiors. Inquiry was held and punishment of censure was inflicted vide order dated 8.6.2005. The period of suspension from 24.5.2002 to 18.6.2004 was directed to be treated as leave of the kind due. Before passing of the order, the appellant took voluntary retirement. 3. Grievance of the writ petitioner was that order restricting the benefits of suspension period to subsistence allowance was passed without a show cause notice. Further grievance of the petitioner was that pensionary benefits were not paid with interest. 4. The petition was contested with the plea that the petitioner had LPA No. 693 of 2009 [2] admitted the charges of remaining absent from duty. The terminal benefits were duly released. Order of punishment having been passed, the competent authority was justified in treating the suspension period as leave of the kind due and restricting the benefit of suspension period to subsistence allowance. 5. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, upholding the stand of the respondent. The findings of the learned Single Judge are as under: “Thus, the position which has emerged is that the petitioner wants to get the premium of that period of service during which he remained unauthorisedly absent and, rather was awarded punishment for that infraction. In my opinion, the petitioner would not be entitled to thus benefit from his own wrong. The next prayer of the petitioner is for interest regarding the delay in release of his retiral benefits. The facts mentioned above show that this was not a case of normal superannuation but a case where a government employee vanished from his job for a period of almost 2-1/2 years, surfaced; and then within six months, during pendency of the inquiry into that very absence, sought for and was granted LPA No. 693 of 2009 [3] voluntary retirement. In the circumstances any delay which may have occurred in the release of his retiral benefits cannot be held to be actionable so as to entitle him to interest.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the show cause notice should have been issued to the appellant before passing the impugned order, withholding benefits for the suspension period, as required under the rules. 8. Having regard to the facts of the present case, this contention cannot be accepted. Punishment was imposed on the appellant for being habitual absentee. In such situation, there is no error in the view taken that for suspension period the appellant is entitled only for subsistence allowance and the said period is to be treated as leave of the kind due. 9. No ground is, thus, made out to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 5, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ........Yes/No