1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6712/2009 Firoj Mohd. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 7.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.DC Sharma, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of punishment dated 19.8.2004 by which is services have been terminated on account of his remaining absent from duty for a long period, which his from 28.3.2003 till the domestic inquiry was conducted. The petitioner's representation against that was dismissed vide order Annex.A/15. Then the matter was referred to the labour court, upon which the petitioner appeared and contested the reference. However, the labour court in labour case no.70/2006 vide order dated 29.5.2007 declared the domestic inquiry to be legal then the petitioner raised industrial dispute upon which the matter was referred to the labour court, Bhilwara and labour court, Bhilwara vide award dated 23.5.2008 rejected the petitioner's claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, all the proceedings vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere 2 issuance of charge-sheet is not sufficient and in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar reported in AIR 1998 SC 2722 and the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union of India Vs. SP Singh reported in AIR 2008 SC 2445. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case and also considered the judgments referred above. This fact is not in dispute that petitioner remained absent from duty from 28.3.2003 till 4.2.2004 when the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The departmental inquiry proceeded ex-parte, but not as stated by the petitioner and before proceeding with the departmental inquiry, notices were sent to the petitioner and by registered post also, then ultimately the notice was published in the daily newspaper published from Chittorgarh. The petitioner did not appear personally in spite of service of the notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. SP Singh (supra) held that any despatch is required to be at the correct address. There is no dispute about this proposition because of the reason that any notice if is issued is required to be served upon the party against whom action is proposed and that can be done only when address is given in the notice is correct address, 3 but here in this case, the facts reveal that after making efforts for serving of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner in ordinary course by sending ordinary mode and by registered post, the respondents had no alternative but to adopt the procedure of substitute service and they published the notice in newspaper and thereafter, they proceeded further. In view of the above reasons the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. In judgment delivered in Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra) the facts before the Hon'ble Supreme Court disclosed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the notice was properly published or personally served upon the petitioner. As stated above, this finding of fact was recorded by the two authorities twice one while considering the reference decided by order dated 29.5.2007 and another by award dated 23.5.2008 passed by the labour court. The petitioner's contention is that he remained absent from duty for such a long time and he did not place on record the sufficient medical proof for that. Suffice it to state that evidence was considered by the authorities below in detail and found that those were not of any help to the petitioner. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-