CWP No.8630 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8630 of 2011 Date of Decision : 18.05.2011 Raj Kumar .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Munish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 06.01.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), holding that the petitioner has been absent from duty for a period of 765 days in his total service of 4 years 6 months. The absence has occurred on 17 occasions which is spread over the total period of service. A charge-sheet was issued and a departmental inquiry was held. The CWP No.8630 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner has been duly informed of the date of inquiry but he preferred to remain absent. Thereafter, ex parte inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer returned the finding that the petitioner has been absent from duty for a period of 765 days which is spread over to the total period of service of 4 years and 6 months. 2. Before the Tribunal, two arguments were raised. Firstly, it was contended that the petitioner has been already penalized as his annual grade increment was stopped vide order dated 15.06.2007 (Annexure P-4). The first submission could not be substantiated because the order regarding stoppage of one increment was passed in respect of the period different than the one for which the petitioner was charge- sheeted for remaining absent from duty. The aforesaid factual position was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner as is apparent from para 4 of the impugned order. As regards the other submission that no inquiry has been held, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner has been duly notified the dates of pendency of inquiry by the inquiry authority and the petitioner opted to remain absent from the proceedings of inquiry. Accordingly, no case was found to be made out for any violation of the principles of natural justice and the order of dismissal passed by the respondent was upheld. 3. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to rebuilt his case on similar grounds which were pleaded before the Tribunal by emphasizing that there was an application filed by the petitioner to seek adjournment. Our attention has been drawn to the letter dated 28.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). The aforesaid letter was addressed to the Investigation Officer and not to the Inquiry Officer. CWP No.8630 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Moreover, we find that the application dated 28.12.2006 has been submitted by the petitioner before the issuance of the charge-sheet. Again the argument is wholly frivolous and the petitioner has deliberately absented from the inquiry proceedings. 4. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 18.05.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE