CWP No.6095 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2062 of 2008 & CWP No.6095 of 1991 Date of Decision:25.02.2009 Mohinder Singh ....petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms.Pooja Satija, Advocate for the respondent-applicants Mr.Vivek Singla,Advocate for the petitioner-non-applicant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.2062 of 2008 This is an application to place on record short affidavit and notices(Annexure R-1 and R-2) on behalf of the respondents. It may be noticed that in para No.2 of the aforesaid affidavit filed by Sh.Chait Ram Chauhan, DIG, BSF Sriganganagar, it has been specifically mentioned that in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as “Union of India and others versus Ram Phal 1996(2)RSJ 550” and “Gouranga Chakraborty versus State of Tripura and others 1992(3)SCC 314”, this writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed as the delinquent did not reply to the notice and it was not incumbent upon the Director General to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 21. Application is allowed. Affidavit is taken on record. CWP No.6095 of 1991 2 CWP No.6095 of 1991 It was further argued by he learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the above settled proposition of law the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the case is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. On the consent of parties main Civil Writ Petition is taken on the Board. In this case, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge of absence without leave. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that no inquiry about his conduct was held in accordance with Rules. The stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner did not resume his duty after expiry of his sanctioned leave and was served two notices i.e.Annexure R-1 and R-2. The delinquent did not reply to the notice, there was no denial of the allegation and no request to hold an enquiry. Therefore, it was not incumbent upon the Director General to appoint an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry in the manner prescribed by Rule 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was unable to controvert the aforesaid stand of the respondents taken on the basis of settled proposition of law in the case of Union of India and others (Supra) and Gouranga Chakraborty (Supra). In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 25.02.2009 neenu