CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 of 1988 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 6, 2011 Dr. Kewal Krishan Verma .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate,for Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, A.A.G., Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has primarily approached this Court through the present writ petition for release of his payment of Rs.8887.05/-, which has been deducted out of his gratuity along with interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner had joined as Dental Surgeon in the erstwhile State of Punjab w.e.f. 21.10.1959. He was allocated to Haryana in 1966. Having served at different places, the petitioner was transferred to Fatehabad in the year 1977. As per the petitioner he fell ill and applied for the leave. He again was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 of 1988 -2- transferred to Safidon, District Jind, where also he remained ill and so had to remain away from duties intermitedly. In September, 1979, the petitioner was again transferred to Mohindergarh. He had again applied for Medical leave. Thus, the petitioner had been praying for grant of sanction of leaves from time to time. Since the petitioner had remained absent without sanction of any leave, he was issued a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952. As per the petitioner, he was exonerated by respondent No.2 i.e. Director Health Services. The petitioner, however, was warned and the period of his absence was regularized as leave of kind dues. This decision was conveyed to him on 2.12.1982, copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. A perusal of Annexure P-1 would show that after making reference to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner and considering his reply, he was warned and advised to be careful in future. The petitioner then had been released pay for the period, which was earlier withheld. Subsequently, however, the petitioner was served a memo dated 16.11.1984 revealing that the order sanctioning the leave and exonerating the petitioner award of warning, was withdrawn. Instead, the petitioner was conveyed a censure on 19.11.1984. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. The petitioner himself has disclosed that the pay scales of the employees of the Haryana Government were revised CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 of 1988 -3- in April, 1979 and his pay was fixed as per the new pay scales. He, however, was not paid salary as per the revised scale. The petitioner would also make a grievance that he was also due for promotion to Senior Dental Surgeon, which was withheld. The petitioner, however was ordered to be promoted on 18.1.1985 and this order was to be effective from 29.4.1981 i.e. the date on which his junior was so promoted. Copy of the said order has been placed on record by the petitioner himself as Annexure-5. The petitioner has made various representations and ultimately has filed this writ petition. In the reply filed by the State, it is disclosed that the petitioner is not entitled to any arrears as he had remained absent from duty, for which he was chargesheeted. It is also stated that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Dental Surgeon on 24.1.1985 with the condition that he will not be entitled to any arrears etc. The details about the payment received by the petitioner is disclosed in the reply and it is then stated that nothing is due to the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order of censure conveyed to him on 19.11.1984 by withdrawing the earlier order dated 2.12.1982, vide which he was warned. The petitioner may be justified in making grievance that the punishment, which was imposed on the petitioner by the competent authority has been reviewed without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Without going into this aspect whether this punishment could be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 of 1988 -4- reviewed or not, the censure, which was conveyed to the petitioner may not be sustainable as the petitioner certainly was required to be given an opportunity of hearing to ensure adherence to the principle of natural justice. This order as such may have to be quashed on this short ground. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to pass an afresh order after hearing the petitioner. The consequence of the promotion of the petitioner with effect from the date his junior was promoted and his entitlement to receive pay and allowances may depend upon any order of punishment which may be passed. While setting aside order of censure Annexure P-3, liberty is left with the respondent-State to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner would also be at liberty to ask for his pay and allowances if the same have not been paid to him for any period to which he will be entitled to. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. January 6, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE