In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.11 of 1989 ..... Date of decision:31.10.2011 Bhajan Lal .....Appellant v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th December, 1988 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby appeal of the respondent was allowed and suit of the plaintiff/ appellant-Bhajan Lal decreed by the trial Court was dismissed. Plaintiff-appellant Bhajan Lal was employed as a permanent driver with the Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr in the year 1977. He proceeded on leave from 19.9.1981 to 28.9.1981 and thereafter applied for R.S.A. No.11 of 1989 [2] an extension after 30.9.1981. Bhajan Lal failed to resume his duty uptill June, 1983. The services of the plaintiff were terminated by an order dated 2nd February, 1982. The plaintiff challenged the order of termination being illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice by filing a suit for declaration in the trial Court. After notice the suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff failed to resume his duties after the lapse of leave period. The department had informed the plaintiff by telegram dated 7.10.1981 that his leave application has been rejected and he should report to duty but the plaintiff failed to do so and accordingly his services were terminated and the termination order was valid and legal. The trial Court decreed the suit merely on the ground that no inquiry was ever held by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways regarding the alleged absence of the plaintiff from duty. However, in appeal the decision of the trial Court has been reversed and plaintiff (appellant herein) has come up before this Court through regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the trial Court record with the assistance of counsels. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was permanent employee of the Government, therefore, the respondent was required to follow the service rules and comply with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that absence without leave cannot be treated as desertion as the appellant may have explanation for such absence. The services cannot be terminated without holding inquiry and following the procedures as prescribed in Civil R.S.A. No.11 of 1989 [3] Services Rules. It is further submitted that the order of termination was never conveyed to the appellant. On the other hand learned counsel representing the State has contended that as the appellant failed to join duty after the expiry of leave, his services have been rightly terminated and the order under appeal was valid and legal. There is no dispute to the point that the appellant has remained absent from duty. It is pertinent to note that the absence period runs from September 1981 to June 1983. Perusal of the plaint shows that the appellant was in knowledge of passing of the impugned order from June 1983. It is case of the appellant that he has not received the communication regarding termination of his services. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent that the appellant was sent a telegram dated 7.10.1981 by which it was duly informed that his application for extension of leave has been dismissed. The appellant appeared in the trial Court as PW.1 and admitted in his cross-examination that the particulars mentioned on the registered cover were the same which were there on the inquiry file as Exhibit D1. I am of the considered view that once registered cover is returned with the report of refusal, it is presumed that the addressee knew the contents of the registered article and deliberately avoided the delivery. This is a case in which the appellant himself has remained absent from duty for such a long period and thereafter is searching for lame excuses to find fault in the procedures of the respondent. If the appellant himself is not willing worker, this Court cannot find fault with the respondent by saying that the proper procedure has not been followed in this case. Once it is established that the respondent has been working within four corners of law, such type of R.S.A. No.11 of 1989 [4] scrutiny cannot be permitted. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any fault in the judgment under appeal. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is bound to fail and is accordingly dismissed. The findings of the appellate Court are affirmed and upheld. October 31, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*