IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 5634 of 2010 in/and C.W.P. No. 13597 of 2004 (O/M) Date of Decision : July 23, 2010. Ravinder Kumar Sharma ...... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). C.M. No. 5634 of 2010 The prayer in the present application is for restoration of C.M. Nos. 4632 and 4633 of 2010, which were dismissed for non prosecution by this Court, vide Order dated 06.04.2010. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The abovementioned applications are restored to its original numbers. C.M. No. 4632 of 2010 The prayer in the present application is for permission to place on record Annexures-P-5 to P-7. Prayer allowed. Annexures-P-5 to P-7 are taken on record. Application stands disposed of. C.W.P. No. 13597 of 2004 (O/M) -2- C.M. No. 4633 of 2010 The prayer in the present application is for listing the case for an early actual date as the case was adjourned sine-die by this Court, vide Order dated 17.09.2004 for placing on record further material in support of contention of the petitioner. Prayer allowed. The writ petition, with the consent of counsel, is taken up for hearing. Application stands disposed of. C.W.P. No. 13597 of 2004 Counsel for the petitioner contends that three punishments for one serious mis-conduct of overstayal of leave, have been imposed on the petitioner. Petitioner’s unauthorised absence from duty without leave for 151 days was with effect from 07.08.2000 to 04.01.2001, and after holding a regular departmental inquiry, punishment of 89 days imprisonment under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short ‘the BSF Act’) was awarded to him. He was also not paid for 89 days of his absence for which he was sentenced. His further contention is that his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2000-2001 was adversely commented upon because of which his further promotion was curtailed, which resulted into drawing of adverse inference thereon. He, therefore, contends that the Order dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure- P-4), passed by respondents, deserves to be quashed. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was enrolled in the Border Security Force on 21.03.1989 and joined as a Constable on 14.06.1990. He proceeded on 10 days casual leave with effect from 28.07.2000 to 06.08.2000. He did not report back for duty, but asked for extension of 20 days leave by sending a letter dated nil, due to his self C.W.P. No. 13597 of 2004 (O/M) -3- sickness without submitting any supportive medical documents. The said prayer for extension of leave was rejected by the Competent Authority and he was accordingly informed at his home address. A Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the BSF Act was conducted for his overstayal of leave. Since he did not report back for duty, Apprehension Roll as per Sections 60/61 of the BSF Act was issued to the concerned police authority. He was also issued a show cause notice. On receipt of the show cause notice by the petitioner, he reported back on 05.01.2001 after having overstayed the leave by 151 days with effect from 07.08.2000 to 04.01.2001. A Regular Departmental Inquiry was held against the petitioner, in which he was found guilty. The petitioner was tried by the Summary Security Court Force on 14.02.2001 under Section 19-B of the BSF Act and was awarded a sentence of 89 days rigorous imprisonment in Force custody. His pay and allowances less ration money, for the period of 89 days with effect from 14.02.2001 to 13.05.2001, was forfeited and his unauthorised absence period was treated as ‘Dies Non’ in accordance with the Rules existing in the matter and he was also held not entitled to salary for this period. This Order is in accordance with the BSF Act and the Rules and, therefore, cannot be faulted with. The consequence thereof was that in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2000-2001, the same found reflected and accordingly adverse report was handed down to the petitioner, which again is in accordance with law. It has been admitted by counsel for the petitioner that no Appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the punishment imposed upon him under Section 19-B of the BSF Act or against adverse Annual Confidential Report for the year 2000- 2001. That apart, the writ petition was only preferred by the petitioner C.W.P. No. 13597 of 2004 (O/M) -4- on 25.02.2004, i.e., after a period of about three years. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that these were two different punishments for the same offence, is totally without any basis. His further contention that this adverse Annual Confidential Report would hamper his further future promotion, again is not a punishment, but consequence of the act and mis-conduct, which had been committed by the petitioner during his service and proved against him in the departmental inquiry held against him in accordance with law, for which he has been punished. No illegality has been found in the Order dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure-P-4), passed by respondents in compliance with the Order passed by this Court in CWP No. 2472 of 2003, wherein a direction was issued to decide legal notice dated 25.01.2002, preferred by the petitioner. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 23, 2010. sjks.