IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 11554 of 2008. Decided on: May 13, 2011. Sher Mohammad …Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, who was employed as a driver with Himachal Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1 herein, is aggrieved by order dated 15.1.1998, Annexure A- 5, by which he has been visited with the penalty of removal from service and also by the order dated 26.6.2004, by which his earlier Original Application No. 204/2004, titled Sher Mohammad v. H.R.T.C. and others, which was ordered to be treated as representation by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, has been rejected. 3. Petitioner, while employed with the HRTC as driver, was posted at Baijnath. He was deployed with a bus, Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - which started from Faridabad in Haryana, on 28.6.1994. The bus reached Dehra at 5.30 P.M. The crew, including the petitioner, was supposed to have taken rest at Dehra, for the night. The bus was to leave on the next day, i.e. 29.6.1994, for Palampur. Petitioner left Dehra for his native place on 28.6.1994, without informing anybody. He did not return and was not available to take the bus to Palampur, on the next following day. Not only this, he remained absent from duty upto 20.10.1994. He was charge sheeted on 5.9.1994 for willful absence from duty and also for violating certain provisions of Leave Rules. He filed reply to the charge sheet. Regular inquiry was conducted, on his reply having not been found satisfactory. He took the plea that on 28.6.1994, when the bus reached Dehra, he got a message from his native place that his wife had fallen from a height and was in a serious condition and that on reaching home, he found that his wife needed an attendant, because of her serious condition and so, he could not report for duty on 29.6.1994. He pleaded that he had sent telegrammes, informing his Office Incharge, and seeking extension of leave. 4. Inquiry Officer did not find any substance in the plea, raised by the petitioner. He returned the finding vide report, copy Annexure A-3, that the petitioner was guilty of willful absence from duty, and also of violation of Leave Rules. Appointing Authority accepted that report, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to make a - 3 - representation against the findings of inquiry report and imposed the penalty of removal from service, vide order dated 15.1.1998, Annexure A-5. 5. Six years after the passing of the aforesaid order of penalty, petitioner filed Original Application before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. That was registered as O.A. (D) No. 204 /2004. It was disposed of vide order, dated 26.6.1994, copy Annexure A-6, with a direction to the Managing Director of HRTC, to treat the Original Application as representation and to pass a speaking order. Managing Director then passed order dated 6.9.2004, copy Annexure A-7 and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner then filed another Original Application before the Tribunal, which was registered as OA(D) 367/2004. It remained pending with the Tribunal, till its abolition in the year 2008. The petition came to this Court, in terms of the Act passed by the State Legislative Assembly, inter alia with regard to the dealing/disposal of the matters, pending before the abolished Tribunal. It was registered as CWP(T) 11554/2008. 6. In the present matter, petitioner has challenged the order of his removal, dated 15.1.1998, as also the order, dated 6.9.2004, whereby his earlier Original Application, which was ordered to be treated as representation, has been rejected. - 4 - 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner from duty, for the period from 29.6.1994 to 20.10.1994, was not willful, but it was on account of pregnancy of his wife and also the sickness of his wife. He has taken me through photo stat copies of some medical papers, which are available with him. Only two of these papers, which are in the nature of OPD chit, dated 25.6.1994 and medical certificate, also of the same date, are issued by a government doctor, of government hospital at Dharamsala. Others are issued by private medical practitioners of Dharamsala. OPD chit dated 25.6.1994, shows that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from enteric fever. Medical certificate of the same date, which is issued by a doctor, other than the doctor who prepared and signed the OPD chit, prescribes complete rest for the wife of the petitioner, for a period of one month. There is an interpolation in this certificate by the doctor, who prepared and signed the OPD chit, but not the certificate, that the petitioner’s wife required an attendant, during the period of her rest for one month from 25.6.1994 to 25.7.1994. This interpolation itself renders the plea of the petitioner doubtful and hence unacceptable. 9. There is absolutely no material, indicating that the wife of the petitioner was pregnant. Also, no evidence was adduced by the petitioner in support of his - 5 - initial plea, that he got a message that his wife had fallen down and sustained serious injuries. There is no medical evidence that petitioner’s wife had sustained any injury, leave alone serious injuries. Therefore, no fault can be found with the report of the inquiry officer, rejecting the plea of the petitioner that his absence was necessitated on account of the illness, pregnancy or injuries of his wife and holding him guilty of willful absence. 10. Since the petitioner left the bus at Dehra, without any justifiable cause and also without informing anybody and then remained absent for about four months, order of punishment, passed by his appointing authority, which order is Annexure A-5, calls for no interference. Consequently, petition is dismissed. May 13, 2011 (PC) ( Surjit Singh ), J.