CWP No. 16464 of 1990 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 16464 of 1990 Date of Decision:12.05.2010 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing order dated 26.5.1989 (Annexure P-12) terminating the services of the petitioner (daily wager) with immediate effect. 2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the office of respondent No.3 w.e.f. 16.12.1986. He was allowed to work. The petitioner remained absent from duty from 29.9.1988 to 5.1.1989; charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.1.1989; petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13.2.1989 CWP No. 16464 of 1990 2 saying he remained absent due to illness. Enquiry Officer submitting his finding of enquiry on 7.4.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued show cause notice vide order dated 11.4.1989. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 26.4.1989. He was heard personally on 18.5.1989. Ultimately, order terminating the service dated 26.5.1989, impugned herein, was passed against the petitioner. 3. Challenge to the termination order is on the ground that the petitioner had filed CWP No.7196 of 1988 alongwith Suresh Kumar for regularisation of his service on 23.8.1988 in which status quo order was passed; however, despite of the status quo order dated 24.8.1988, status of the petitioner was disturbed by transferring the petitioner to the workshop and ordered him to work as Helper. The said action of respondent No.3 was challenged in COCP No.472 of 1988 in which counsel for respondent No.3 furnished undertaking stating that the petitioner shall be assigned clerical duty even in the workshop. The aforesaid CWP No.7196 of 1988 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.10.1988 in terms of the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Piara Singh Vs. State of Haryana (CWP No.72 of 1988, decided on 26.9.1988). 4. As per the petitioner, his services were terminated because he could dare to approach this Court. Petitioner further states that no presenting officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry and the petitioner was not allowed to produce his defence evidence. Petitioner was not allowed to inspect the attendance register. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Mr. Paul S. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently CWP No. 16464 of 1990 3 stated that vide order dated 3.10.1988 passed in CWP No.7196 of 1988, this Court directed to consider the regularisation of petitioner's services, who was working as a daily wager. No regularisation order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Paul S. Saini further states that since the petitioner fell ill, hence he could not attend his duty and remained absent from 29.9.1988 to 5.1.1989. 7. A perusal of the impugned termination order dated 26.5.1989 shows that petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing vide letter dated 9.5.1989, however, the petitioner did not appear. He was further given a chance for personal hearing vide letter dated 11.5.1989 to appear in person on 18.5.1989. However, petitioner did not produce any evidence justifying his absence from duty. 8. Unauthorized absence from duty without any leave or without any sufficient cause is a sufficient ground to terminate the services of daily wager. No illegality is pointed out in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry. Non-filing of the attendance register would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, simply on the ground that the petitioner himself admitted that he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly from 29.9.1988 to 5.1.1989. Fact of absence is admitted to the petitioner. In view of this, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. 9. Writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 12.05.2010 sk.