IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL IN NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 92 (S/B) of 2004 Jhanak Singh S/o Shri Ram Phal R/o Village Lodhipur Chhapka P.O. Sadullahpur Lodhi District Ghaziabad ... Petitioner Vs 1. State Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun 2. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary of Home Affairs 3. Inspector General of Police Kumaon Nainital 4. D.I.G. Kumaon Range, Nainital 5. Superintendent of Police, Nainital ... Respondents Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the part of the order dated 08.07.2003 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Dehradun- Respondent No.1 and further a writ has been prayed in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner during his service remained posted in various places. On 08.11.1992, the petitioner got four days casual leave and has to report on duty on 12.11.1992 but due to his illness he could not report back to his duties. The petitioner had intimated his illness to his superiors immediately and was under treatment in a Government Hospital. 3. On 01.06.1993, the petitioner reported back on his duty along with medical certificate from medical officer in-charge P.H.C. Garhmukteshawar. Thereafter, on 21.06.1993, the C.O. Khatima, District Nainital started proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act against the petitioner and issued a notice to him. After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner on 28.06.1992, filed his reply on the aforesaid notice. In the said charge sheet, the charges against the petitioner was that he had remained absent from his duties fro 201 days, 17 hours and 15 minutes and he has not got examined himself at a Government Hospital. Sri Dileep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed to conduct the inquiry who after conducting the inquiry submitted his report on 03.11.1993. The punishing authority disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a notice to the petitioner on 22.12.1994. The petitioner also replied the aforesaid notice by filing a representation-dated 30.01.1995, explaining each and every aspect against the charges levelled against him. The punishing authority without considering the recommendation of the inquiry officer and the petitioner’s representation passed the dismissal order of the petitioner on 04.04.1995. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed an appeal before Departmental Appellate Authority, which too met with the same fate. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a claim petition before Public Service Tribunal which was transferred for adjudication to Public Service Tribunal, Uttaranchal and was renumbered as claim petition No. 102/T/2001. The Tribunal disposed of the petition of the petitioner on 08.07.2003 with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the notional service benefits, but with no back wages and to regularize the period of absence from 125th November, 1992 to 1st June, 1993 with the leave of kind due, including medical. 2 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Tribunal’s order challenging this part of the order dated 08.07.2003 that the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. We have perused the impugned judgment of the Public Service Tribunal as well as perused the material on record. From perusal of reveals that the charge against the petitioner was that he remained absent from duty for about 202 days and during this period he did not get treatment in a Government Hospital but remained as outdoor patient and submitted medical certificates as outdoor patient. Further, the illness of the petitioner was not denied by the department and the Department also did not deny the receipt of continuous requests and applications from the petitioner seeking extension of leave of medical ground. The Public Service Tribunal has rightly observe that the petitioner might have technically failed to abide by Regulation No. 382, yet he did conduct himself with all the requisite bonafides by taking treatment at the Primary Health Centre, which is Government institution and covered his home village. Nothing has come on record which may doubt the credibility of the doctor attending on the petitioner. There was also no hint to the fake illness of the petitioner. Thus the Enquiry Officer in the circumstances of the case gave a balanced report. Further the Disciplinary Authority did not even record any reason for overruling the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the termination order. 3 8. We do not find any infirmity, illegality in the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly disposed of the petition with a direction to the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all the notional service benefits, but with no back wages and to regularize the period of his absence from 12th November, 1992 to 1st June, 1993 with the leave of kind due, including medical. We do not find any good ground for interference in the impugned judgment passed by the Public Service Tribunal. 9. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal is upheld. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) May 5, 2006. R.Dang 4