R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 21st August, 2009 Balbir Singh ……..Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another …….Respondents Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J Civil Misc. No. 11948-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 195 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. No. 11949-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 11950-C of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. The delay in making good the deficiency in court fees is condoned. Civil Misc. No. 11951-C of 2008 and R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008 1 R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008(O&M) Though there is a delay in the filing of the appeal, the case has been heard on merits. The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 9.01.2007 and 1.05.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur and the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing his suit and his appeal, respectively. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration, challenging orders dated 29.07.1999 and 6.08.1999 treating the period from 12.06.1999 to 20.06.1999 and from 25.06.1999 to 28.06.1999 as leave without pay and imposing the punishment of censure. The appellant alleged that he proceeded on leave after filing a proper application for grant of casual leave. The respondents did not inform him that his application had been rejected and therefore, have no right in law to treat the aforementioned period as leave without pay or to record an order of censure. In response to the averments in the plaint, the respondents filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint by asserting that the appellant was absent from duty. After framing issues, the trial court called upon the parties to lead evidence. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 1.05.2007, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, 2 R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008(O&M) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the courts below are factually and legally flawed. The appellant applied for casual leave and proceeded on leave as rejection was not communicated. It is submitted that in view of the errors committed by the courts below, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration: “Whether the order of punishment is legal and valid, as rejection of the appellant’s application for casual leave was not communicated before he proceeded on leave?” I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The courts below are concurrent in their opinion that the appellant proceeded on leave without waiting for the acceptance of his application for casual leave. It has been rightly held that casual leave is not a right and is always subject to its prior acceptance by the concerned authority. I find no error in the impugned judgments and decrees as would enable this court to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below or to hold that they are based upon conjectures and surmises. The question of law that the appellant did not receive any communication of the rejection of his application before he proceeded on leave, has to be rejected on the ground that casual leave is not a matter of 3 R.S.A.No. 4017 of 2008(O&M) right and before proceeding on casual leave an employee must await the acceptance or rejection of his application. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 21st August, 2009 SKaushik 4