CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 23 .3.2011 Chamkaur Singh ..Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal and others ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr.C.M.Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against judgement dated 29.10.2010 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), declining the relief claimed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of his removal dated 13.2.2008 (P-1). The Tribunal has also upheld the order in appeal dated 10.7.2008 (P-2), and the order passed on his revision petition on 22.1.2009 (P-5). 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was working on the post of Gramin Dak Sewak Packer since 26.3.1998, and was posted as such in Gholia Khurd Sub Office (Faridkot). He was found to be absent from duty from 15.2.2007 and an intimation was duly sent by Sub Postmaster Gholia Khurd-140256 to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office , Faridkot . Accordingly Assistant Superintendent of Post Office ordered to stop pay and allowances of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 10.4.2007 his work was CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) 2 ordered to be distributed to Shri Mohtam Singh and Shri Gurinder Singh. An intimation was sent to the petitioner on 10.4.2007 alleging that he was absent from duty without any sanctioned leave from the competent authority since 15.2.2007. As per the findings recorded by the Tribunal, an enquiry was conducted by the Postman who was to deliver the registered letter at the address of the petitioner. It was revealed that he had left India for foreign country. He was directed to join duty immediately and explain the reasons for his unauthorised absence from duty failing which disciplinary action was to be taken against him. The letter was received back undelivered with the endorsement that the petitioner had left for foreign country. Even the subsequent letter was received back undelivered. 3. On 23.10.2007 a charge sheet was sent to the petitioner through registered post which again was received back undelivered with the remarks that the addressee left India since long and has gone to foreign country. As such the letter was returned to sender. Then notice was published in the newspaper on 11.1.2008 clarifying that the postal authorities have informed about leaving of the country by the petitioner and action was sought to be taken against him under the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment), Rules, 2001. Despite publication of notice in the newspaper, the petitioner did not turn up to attend his duty. Eventually an order of removal from service has been passed against him (P-1). 4. The petitioner has claimed that he had become mentally sick and lost his memory on 15.2.2007 and he was under medical treatment of one Dr. Lachhman Dass MBBS at Amritsar. After passing of order of dismissal he had submitted a representation against the penalty order which was rejected on 22.1.2009. The contention raised by the petitioner of having CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) 3 fallen ill was not accepted by holding that it was a concocted story. Had there been any such illness he or any other member of his family could have easily informed the competent authority for grant of leave. All the correspondence relating to the disciplinary proceedings have been sent to his known address and every time it was received back undelivered. The Postmaster has recorded an endorsement on the registered letter that the petitioner had left India and had gone to a foreign country. The version of the petitioner that he regained memory was not believed by the authorities because nobody from the village had stated that he was mentally ill. The charge against him was that he was absent from duty without any sanctioned leave. There was no proof of his mental illness as no certificate of a competent authority was produced alongwith his representation. The petitioner had failed to prove his innocence before the appellate authority and revisional authority. The Tribunal has observed that the penalty of removal from service inflicted upon the petitioner-original applicant, therefore has rightly been upheld by the appellate as well as revisional authority. 5. The Tribunal while placing reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of H.B.Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 312, has taken the view that judicial review is not directed against the decision but that is confined to the decision making process and its purpose was to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment. The Tribunal has concluded in para 10 and 11 as under: “ Considering the opinion expressed by the apex court of the country, this Tribunal would be slow in interfering in the orders passed by the disciplinary authorities unless the concerned CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) 4 delinquent has not been given fair treatment. In this case, admittedly, the applicant was given many chances, time and again to participate in the enquiry but he did not avail of the same. He cannot, therefore, be allowed to turn around now and say that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. He cannot claim benefit of his own wrong. The applicant in our view had abandoned the service to try his luck in a foreign country. Obviously,l the Postman had no interest in recording, on enquiry, on the envelopes sent to the applicant that the applicant had left for a foreign country. While examining the various pleas taken by the applicant on the touch-stone of theory of prejudice, we find that no prejudice was caused to the applicant as he had every opportunity to prove his innocence in his appeal/ revision petition in which he has failed. The various authorities cited on his behalf regarding it being a case of violation of principles of natural justice etc. do not apply at all to the facts and circumstances of this case and are clearly distinguishable on facts and law. 11. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find this Original Apparition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 6. Mr. C.M.Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced two documents before us. He has filed affidavit of the petitioner that he did not have Passport and therefore he could not have gone to a foreign country. He has also placed on record a certificate issued by Dr. CWP No. 4693 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Lachhman Dass Bajaj of Ferozepur. The version of the petitioner that he lost his memory is further falsified by the certificate issued by Dr. Lachhman Dass Bajaj, MBBS. According to the Doctor, he was suffering from Anxiety Neurosis with some depression. There is no mention of any loss of memory as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, in the case of mental illness, no sensible person would go to a MBBS doctor and infact the case of the petitioner was that he was taken to Amritsar for medical treatment. The certificate produced before this Court is by the Doctor at Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. The conclusion of the authorities below as well as that of the Tribunal that the petitioner has concocted a story has further been fortified by the certificate produced on record. Therefore, we are unable to accept the version of the petitioner. 7. This Court would have ordered an enquiry against the petitioner for producing a false certificate but are refraining from doing so taking into account that he has already been dismissed from service. The writ petition is without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed, although that might itself may not be a ground to bail him out. 8. For the reasons afore mentioned this petition does not merit admission and is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (T.P.S. Mann) 23.3.2011 Judge okg