Regular Second Appeal No. 3266 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3266 of 2007 Date of Decision : March 31, 2008 Charanjit Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot on 3.2.2007. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiff filed the first appeal which stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide judgement dated 10.5.2007. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiff was that he was enrolled as a Constable in the Police Department on compassionate grounds. He performed his duties honestly and diligently. He never remained absent Regular Second Appeal No. 3266 of 2007 -2- from his duty, but certain officials in the Police Department, who were inimical towards him, showed him absent and he was not allowed to join his duties. Though, an enquiry was ordered but no notice of the same was issued to him. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted ex parte leading to passing of order dated 10.12.2002, whereby he was dismissed from service. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff by asserting that he was a habitual absentee and did not discharge his duties honestly and sincerely. Four departmental enquiries were initiated against him but he did not join any of those enquiries, inspite of the fact that notices were issued to him. He was earlier dismissed from service on 3.2.2000 due to his absence from duty, however, he was reinstated later on. The plaintiff again remained absent from his duties with effect from 26.2.2002 to 29.3.2002 and thereafter from 22.4.2002 onwards intentionally and knowingly. He did not join his duties despite issuance of repeated notices. Accordingly, the order of removal of the plaintiff from service was passed, which was legal, valid and based on the evidence. As per the enquiry file Ex.P.1, the plaintiff-appellant was given repeated notices but he did not come forward to face the same. Two of these notices were served upon his mother, while the third on his sister. These notices were also affixed at the door of his house. Despite all this, the appellant did not care to join the enquiry. Faced with such a situation, the defendants had no other option but to proceed against him ex parte. Regular Second Appeal No. 3266 of 2007 -3- The charge-sheet as contained in enquiry file Ex.P.1, was received by the appellant by appending his signatures. Still, he did not face the enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against him. After the completion of the enquiry, show cause notice dated 30.9.2002 was given to the appellant to explain as to why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed. Another similar show cause notice was also given on 17.10.2002. Both were received by him but again he did not file any reply. It was only thereafter that the order was passed on 10.12.2002 by respondent No. 2 vide which he was removed from service. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts suffered from any infirmity or illegality. No case is made out for any interference in concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants arise for determination. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 31, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO