IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13700 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: February 11, 2009 Ajmer Singh …Petitioner Versus U.T., Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr. D.S. Marwaha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has been working as a driver with the U.T. Chandigarh. He remained willfully absent from duty without any sanctioned leave from 23.6.2003 to 24.9.2003. Regular departmental inquiry was instituted under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). He did not tender any reply to the charge sheet and thereafter was proceeded as ex parte. The Enquiry Officer conducted ex parte inquiry and nothing has been C.W.P. No. 13700 of 2008 2 pointed out to show that any rule or procedure causing prejudice to the petitioner has been violated by the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, it has been recorded that the petitioner was aware of the charge sheet and failed to take any defence. He knew about the date, time and place of inquiry as he had received the summons personally under his own signatures. A copy of the inquiry report was also served upon him on 4.1.2005, asking him to make a representation in that regard. He was heard on 6.6.2005 by the Director, Transport, U.T. Chandigarh. The Director has held that the veracity of the charges stood proved beyond any doubt and the Enquiry Officer had offered proper and adequate opportunity to the delinquent official to defend his case. Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from service in exercise of power conferred by the Rules, vide order dated 6.6.2005 (P-1). His appeal to the Home Secretary-cum-Secretary Transport, Chandigarh, was also dismissed on 24.3.206 (P-3). The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh also found that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and dismissed O.A. No. 510/PB/2006, vide impugned order dated 21.1.2008 (P-4). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are un-assailable. The charges of wilful absence from duty from 23.6.2003 to 24.9.2003 stand proved. There is no lapse committed by the Enquiry Officer or any other officer at the appellate stage or by the Tribunal in their respective orders warranting interference of this Court. The ‘Wednesbury’ principles, which have been crystallised by Hon’ble the C.W.P. No. 13700 of 2008 3 Supreme Court in a Seven-Judges Bench judgment in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1, could also not be invoked against the respondents because nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner that there is any lapse committed by any authority. From the written statement, we further find that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. A perusal of his record as depicted in Annexure R-1 would show that he has been on leave without pay for long spells and does not seem to be interested in service. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) February 11, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor