IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 893 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 2, 2010 State of Haryana and others …Appellants Versus Jai Bhagwan …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana, for the appellants. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 16.2.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5667 of 2009. The learned Single Judge while placing reliance on Rule 3.17-A read with Rule 4.23 of the Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, has held that the service rendered from 31.5.1972 to 3.7.1978 by the respondent has to be considered as qualifying service for the purposes of pension and deserves to be tagged with his regular service which commenced from 16.12.1981. The excuse of the appellants to refuse the benefit of the LPA No. 893 of 2010 (O&M) aforesaid qualifying service on the ground that the respondent was absent from duty from 3.7.1978 to 16.12.1981 cannot be accepted in law because neither there was any communication to the petitioner- respondent nor any show cause notice issued. The mandate of both the aforementioned Rules is that interruption in service of a government employee should have been caused by willful absence from duty and un- authorised absence without leave. It is well settled that willful absence from duty or un-authorised absence without leave is a misconduct, as has been held by a 5-Judges Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492. Without holding any inquiry, no such excuse would be permissible. Therefore, it has to be regarded as a mere excuse for denying an employee his qualifying service of long years, which is more than six years in the present case. Moreover, under Rule 4.23 such an interruption has to be regarded by reasons beyond the control of government employee because had be been given an opportunity, he might have explained the reasons of his absence when he was working on ad hoc basis. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant appeal. Dismissed. In view of the fact that the instant appeal has been dismissed on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the miscellaneous applications filed along with it. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE 2 LPA No. 893 of 2010 (O&M) (A.N. JINDAL) August 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3