LPA No. 1395 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1395 of 2009 Date of decision:- 16.09.2010 Sukhwinder Singh ......Appellant/Writ Petitioner Vs The Food Corporation of India and others. ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: - Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the appellant/writ petitioner. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, J (ORAL) Heard. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 10.07.2009 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellant/writ petitioner had challenged the order dated 24.09.1998 removing him from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. The said order was passed by invoking the provisions of Regulation 63 (ii) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, under which the disciplinary authority can proceed to pass orders of penalty without holding an inquiry, inter-alia, in a situation when the disciplinary authority is of the view that in the facts of the case it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. In the writ petition filed the appellate LPA No. 1395 of 2009 2 order dated 28.07.2005/03.08.2005, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner had also been challenged. The facts that will be required to be noticed lie in a short compass. The appellant/writ petitioner was a Clerk in the Food Corporation of India at Chandigarh. On 08.01.1998, he applied for leave and also for permission to go abroad on personal grounds. The leave applied was not granted and permission to go abroad was not accorded. Despite the above, the appellant/writ petitioner went abroad. All attempts to inform the appellant/writ petitioner to rejoin his duties immediately or face consequential action did not yield any result. In fact, registered notices were sent at the disclosed/available foreign address of the appellant/writ petitioner but the same came back unserved. Publications in the newspapers by the employer also remained unsuccessful. On 03.08.98 the Corporation received an undated application without any address from the appellant/writ petitioner through his father seeking extension of leave upto a certain date in September, 1998, though, leave was never sanctioned. In such circumstances, the Corporation took the view that the provisions of Regulation 63 (ii) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, should be invoked and the appellant/writ petitioner be removed from service. Consequently, the order of removal dated 24.09.1998, had been passed. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has placed before the Court a Division Bench judgement in Lalji Dass Ex- Constable Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1996(1), RSJ, 285 (P&H), to contend that it has been laid down in para 10 of the said judgement LPA No. 1395 of 2009 3 that only in the situations mentioned in sub-paragraphs a, b and c, dispensation of inquiry, on the ground of impracticability of holding the same would be permissible. According to learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner none of the situations contemplated in the said judgement arise in the facts of the present case. Learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has also submitted the reasons which had prompted the appellant/writ petitioner to go abroad as well as the reasons which were responsible for his over staying/absence. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. The situations contemplated in Lalji Dass Ex-Constable's case (supra), where an inquiry can be dispensed with on the ground that it is impracticable to hold the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive. This is apparent from a bare reading of para 10 of the judgement rendered in Lalji Dass Ex-Constable's case (supra). All situations where it may become impracticable to hold an inquiry cannot be visualized and much would depend on the facts of the given case. All that the Court is required to see is the relevance of the reasons cited to the formation of the requisite opinion. In the present case, despite numerous attempts made by the Corporation, the appellant/writ petitioner could not be contacted/located so as to ensure his participation in the inquiry. In fact there was a conscious attempt on the part of the appellant not to reveal his whereabouts to the Corporation as evident from the letter submitted through the father of the appellant. At the same time, the appellant/writ petitioner having left for a foreign country without permission and LPA No. 1395 of 2009 4 without leave was guilty of a serious act of indiscipline which could not be tolerated. If in such a situation the Corporation thought that it was not practicable to hold an inquiry and at the same time it was necessary to remove the petitioner, the actions of the Corporation cannot be faulted. Such actions of the Corporation were justified in the established facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed and the judgement dated 10.07.2009 of the Learned Single Judge is affirmed. (RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) 16.09.2010 JUDGE Amodh