LPA No. 884 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 884 of 2009 Date of decision:- 29.09.2010 Gurmit Singh ......Appellant/Writ Petitioner Vs State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice (Jails), Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Chaman Lal Goel, Advocate, for the appellant/writ petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and having regard to the subject matter involved the appeal is being disposed of at the motion stage. The challenge herein is against an order dated 06.08.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the termination of his service made by order dated 10.03.1998. The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a Warder in LPA No. 884 of 2009 2 the Central Jail, Patiala, for a period of 89 days by order dated 07.02.1995. Though the period of appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner was for 89 days, it is not in dispute that he continued to be in service beyond the aforesaid period. The appellant/writ petitioner allegedly absented himself from duties w.e.f. 10.11.1997 and did not rejoin his duties inspite of communications to that effect sent by registered post. Consequently by order dated 10.03.1998, his service was terminated. The events that occurred subsequent thereto would not be required to be noticed except that there was a criminal case instituted against the appellant/writ petitioner on an allegation of commission of forgery with regard to his transfer to another district by order dated 24.03.1998. The said criminal case also ended in the acquittal of the appellant/writ petitioner. Against the order of termination dated 10.03.1998, the appellant/writ petitioner filed a representation/appeal dated 24.06.1998, which was rejected on 18.06.2009. It is evident from a reading of the order of termination dated 10.03.1998 and the order dated 18.06.2009, rejecting the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner that the basis of his termination is continuous absence from duties. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that as the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed for 89 days he would have no legally enforceable right to remain in service beyond the said period. As already observed, a reading of the order of termination LPA No. 884 of 2009 3 dated 10.03.1998 and the order dated 18.06.2009 rejecting the representation of the appellant/writ petitioner squarely indicates that the ground of termination of the appellant/writ petitioner was his alleged unauthorized absence from duties. Unauthorized absence from duties is a mis-conduct which has to be established after holding an inquiry. It was open for the respondents-State to dispense with the services of the appellant/writ petitioner on the ground that his services were not required beyond the period for which he was appointed. But this was not done. Instead termination was made on an allegation of mis-conduct without holding an inquiry. We, therefore, have no hesitation in taking the view that the impugned termination of the appellant/writ petitioner made without holding an inquiry is contrary to the elementary principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned action of the State is liable to be set aside on the above score. The appellant/writ petitioner is out of employment since the year 1998. The allegation against him i.e. absence from duties has not been proved in an inquiry. In such circumstances, we do not consider the present case to be fit for grant of consequential relief of reinstatement. Rather we deem it appropriate to direct that it would be open to the respondent-State to hold an inquiry against the appellant/writ petitioner on the allegation of unauthorized absence from duties, if so advised, and thereafter take consequential action on the basis of the findings of the inquiry. We, however, make it clear that if the respondents do not initiate any action against the appellant/writ petitioner within a period of three months, they would be under an LPA No. 884 of 2009 4 obligation to reinstate the appellant/writ petitioner in service with such consequential reliefs as may be due to him in accordance with law. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 29.09.2010 JUDGE Amodh