LPA No. 558 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 558 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2011 Ex-Constable Dalel Singh …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate for the appellant. 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 appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 29.06.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the order of discharge passed against the appellant, who was working on the post of Constable was stigmatic and therefore, liable to be quashed. According to the learned Single Judge the order ex facie is based on the allegations of misconduct of remaining absent from duty. It has been pointed out by the learned Single Judge that even in the written statement, the respondent-State had pleaded that the appellant has been a habitual absentee from his official duty and has remained absent from Government service without any leave or permission from the competent authority. In support of the proposition that a stigmatic order has to be considered as an order of dismissal, reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Haryana v. Jagdish Chander 1995(2) SCC 567, wherein it has been held that findings of habitual absence and indiscipline would necessarily cast a stigma on the career of the employee, which would be impediment for any further employment earlier. The aforesaid view is also supported by the Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Jai Shankar v. State LPA No. 558 of 2011 (O&M) -2- of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length. Mr. Tacoria has urged for limited relief in the instant appeal and has submitted that backwages from the date of order of dismissal passed on 02.08.1990 till 29.06.2010 have been denied by the learned Single Judge, which is impermissible. However, neither any statutory provision has been cited nor any judgment has been produced before us to reach the conclusion that the 100% backwages has to be given to the appellant. Even otherwise, the appellant has been given back the post of Constable along with other consequential benefits excluding the backwages. Once the learned Single Judge in his wisdom has refused the benefit of back wages partially then we are not inclined to substitute our opinion to that of learned Single Judge particularly when no law has been shown to us, which may support the view of granting 100% backwages. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 11, 2011 Atul