R.S.A No. 107 of 1996 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 107 of 1996 (O&M) Date of decision : December 08, 2009 The State of Punjab and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Tehal Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab for the appellants. Mr. P.S.Goraya, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent whereby he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 20.3.1991. The facts, leading to the suit, were that the respondent went on sanctioned leave w.e.f 1.7.1987. After the initial period of his sanctioned leave was over, he made various requests for extension of leave but the same were never acceded to. Even after the period mentioned in the subsequent applications was over, the respondent did not join his duties. R.S.A No. 107 of 1996 (O&M) ::2:: Various notices were issued to him but to no avail. Ultimately, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after holding an inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service, vide order dated 20.3.1991. He filed the instant suit which, as mentioned above, was decreed primarily on the ground that the punishing authority of the respondent was the Registrar Cooperative Societies and the action against him having been taken by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, was invalid. Apart from reinstatement, the respondent was granted all benefits of service including pay and allowances. The lower appellate Court having affirmed the said judgment, the State of Punjab is in appeal before me. No question of law was proposed at the time of filing of this appeal. However, today counsel for the State of Punjab has argued that it cannot be held that the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies was not the competent authority and, therefore, the dismissal order had to be upheld. In reply, counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no challenge to the finding regarding the incompetence of the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies. He has further argued that the appellants prevented the respondent from joining his services and has, thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal. In my opinion, the positions taken by the parties are too extreme. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the respondent left his job in a very cavalier fashion without caring for the consequences. On the other hand, it also cannot be forgotten that the appellants did not act as per law while initiating disciplinary proceedings. Even though the question of law proposed has to be answered against the appellants yet the respondent is not entitled to all the consequential benefits including pay and allowances for R.S.A No. 107 of 1996 (O&M) ::3:: the period that he did not work. Resultantly, though the question of law proposed is answered against the appellants, yet the relief given to the respondent is modified to the extent that he would not be entitled to get pay and allowances for the period that he did not work. It has been brought to my notice that the respondent was due to superannuate on 31.10.2003. In the circumstances, the appellants are directed to work out all the notional benefits, which are due to the respondent and release the same within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent shall be entitled to interest @ 8% p.a on the arrears. In case the benefits are not released within the aforesaid period, the appellants would be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. No costs. With the modification as aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 08, 2009. JUDGE `kk'