IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 7533/2008 Decided on:16.4.2009 Dhanesh Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Chainman on daily wage basis in the month of July, 1996. He remained absent for 353 days. He was served with a show cause notice Annexure A-2 on 25.2.2000. He filed reply to the same on 3.3.2000. His services were terminated vide Annexure A-1 in the month of April, 2000. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been dealt with in just and fair manner. He has relied upon Kuldip Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1988 (2) SLC 46. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he remained absent for 353 days with effect from 15.7.1996 to 31.5.2000. He was served with a show cause notice and after taking into consideration his reply, impugned Annexure A-1 was issued. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Chainman on daily wage basis. He was appointed for settlement work. It is a matter of common knowledge that the settlement work is not static and the staff has to go place to place for settlement work. The settlement work is time bound. The petitioner remained absent for 353 days. The only reason assigned by the petitioner in his representation for his willful absence is that his father was sick. He has not given the details of the ailment from which his father was affected. He has also not mentioned whether his father was hospitalized or was under treatment at his native place. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner issued Annexure A-1. The ratio of judgment in Kuldip Singh versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and another (supra) is that no order shall be passed having civil consequences even in a case of daily wager without hearing him. In the present case the petitioner has been heard and after taken into consideration the reply filed by him, impugned Annexure A-1 has been issued. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 16.4.2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*