IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 23089 of 2010 Date of Decision: 23.12.2010. Ved Parkash --Petitioner Versus Haryana State Warehousing Corporation & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner was transferred from one place to another and relieved on 5.8.2010. Under the order of this Court petitioner joined back on the original place of posting. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he re-joined on 17.8.2010 and remained absent for 11 days. The period of absence has been treated as leave of the kind due vide the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-2). The only ground on which the impugned orders are challenged is that the petitioner was forced to remain out of service. This contention is totally baseless. The mere fact that an employee has challenged the order of transfer that does not mean he/she has a license to remain absent from duty. As a matter of fact the conduct of the petitioner was liable for disciplinary action but the respondents have only treated the period of absence as earned leave. I do not find any merit in this petition. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.12.2010. lucky