CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 19 ,2011 H.C.Arora .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. J. S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A person invoking writ remedy, has to approach the Court in fair manner and can be denied relief if he approaches the Court either with unclean hands or in any other fraudulent or misleading manner. The petitioner apparently is seen to have approached the Court in a rather smart manner bordering in fraud, leading to abuse of process of Court. The petitioner, who had served with the National Projects Construction Corporation Limited, has challenged the order of his CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: removal passed on 23.8.2006 and so also the enquiry and the order dated 29.9.2008, rejecting his appeal. The case has a long drawn history, which may need recapitulation. The petitioner, who sought his release under revised voluntary retirement scheme on account of his ill health, has disclosed that his application was accepted by the Corporation on 21.2.2003. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for withdrawing the application in this regard due to changed circumstances. The petitioner, however, was still relieved from service on 14.8.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.14692 of 2003 before this Court, challenging the order whereby his prayer for withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement was declined. This prayer was opposed by the Corporation. On the basis of pleadings, this Court stayed the letter dated 5.9.2003 vide which the petitioner was relieved from service consequent to his voluntary retirement. This was after 4 months of the petitioner being relieved from service. This order is dated 19.1.2004. The petitioner was then allowed to join duties on 23.1.2004. He worked at AEE (c) at Hathiari Power House Unit till 23.6.2004. The Corporation transferred the petitioner to Guwahati, which the petitioner would term as malafide action taken against him as he had filed writ petition. Instead of proceeding on transfer, the petitioner applied for casual leave on the ground that his mother was unwell. Thereafter, he sent telegram for extension of leave till 30.6.2004 as his mother was critical. In this manner, the petitioner continued to ask for extension of leave either on account of his own health problem or that of his mother and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: daughter upto 27.4.2006. The petitioner claims that he had submitted request for sick leave on the basis medical certificate issued by the doctor at the Government Hospital. The petitioner says that he was diagnosed as case of hyper-tension. The petitioner would maintain that the extension of leave was sanctioned, but has not placed any order on record in support of this stand. It appears that the petitioner is reading implied sanction of leave on the ground that no order declining the same was ever conveyed to him. According to the petitioner, his leave should be deemed to have been sanctioned. The petitioner avers that he learnt from the response filed to the writ petition that the disciplinary proceedings for absence were pending against him. The petitioner states that no show cause notice was issued to him. On 7.12.2005, the Corporation had issued charge sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the same on 12.1.2006 and sent the evidence of his letters and telegrams, seeking extension of his leave. Without making any mention whether he had participated in the enquiry or not, the petitioner has stated that Enquiry Officer gave report on 26.5.2006, holding him guilty of the allegation. On this basis, the Corporation had imposed an order of removal on 23.8.2006. Against this, the petitioner filed an appeal on 22.11.2006, which was dismissed by the Board of Directors on 29.9.2008. The petitioner did not take any action against this order, till he has now filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has got Civil Writ Petition No.14682 of 2003 dismissed as withdrawn on 23.9.2010 with liberty to challenge the order of removal. This order dated 23.9.2010 is not placed on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: record of this file. From the above noted facts, the counsel for the petitioner submits that once the voluntary retirement of the petitioner has been given effect to and the petitioner was relieved from his duty, which he had challenged through writ, which has been withdrawn, the said order would become effective. As per the petitioner, he would be deemed to have been voluntarily retired and, thus, could not have been ordered to be removed from service. The petitioner is seen acting rather in a smart manner. He can not be allowed to take advantage of a Machiavellian schemes. Writ is a remedy in equity. The petitioner has challenged the order of his voluntary retirement. By way of an interim order, the petitioner was able to get back into service and had rejoined his duties and performed the same w.e.f. 23.1.2004 to 23.6.2004. Once the petitioner was transferred, he refused to proceed to the place of transfer and apparently chose to ask for leave on one pretext or the other. It was never the case set up by the petitioner that he is not in service because of the order of voluntary retirement. Now when the order of removal is passed, the petitioner has come up with novel plea to urge that his voluntary retirement has become effective on withdrawal of his writ petition. Is it fair approach and can the petitioner be permitted to adopt this stand, is a question? If allowed, it would lead to abuse of the process of this Court. This mechanism can not be permitted in equity or law. The petitioner has withdrawn the petition, challenging his voluntary retirement while asking for liberty to challenge the order of removal. Withdrawal of writ petition can not make the order of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: removal ineffective in the manner as is being pleaded by the petitioner. If the petitioner had considered himself to be no more in service, there was no reason for him to ask for leave for all these years and even now to plead his sickness on the basis of record produced to challenge the order of removal. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted, then he may not require to challenge the order of his removal on the ground of sickness. Even now the counsel would plead that while removing the petitioner from service, his medical record has not been taken into consideration. This approach of the petitioner is highly unfair, inequitable and nothing short of playing fraud with the Court. The petitioner had first obtained an interim order from this Court and was able to re-enter the service under the interim order passed by this Court. He had served for nearly 6 months and thereafter sought leave, when he was transferred. He responded to the charge sheet issued to him for absence, where he never took up the plea that there is no relationship of employer and employee, which is now being pressed to challenge the removal on the ground that upon withdrawal of his writ petition, the order of his voluntary retirement has become effective. I am certain that if the petitioner had so disclosed the effect of withdrawal of writ petition before the Court while withdrawing his earlier writ petition, this Court would have definitely not granted the permission to the petitioner to do so. The respondents had obeyed the orders passed by this Court and taken the petitioner to be in service. The respondents can very well now come forward to say that the order of voluntary retirement is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: withdrawn. In any case, the petitioner had prayed for permission to withdraw the writ petition to challenge the order of removal and so he can not now be heard to contend that removal would be ineffective because of his earlier order of voluntary retirement is ineffective. This approach is nothing short of playing fraud with the Court and can not be permitted. In equity as well as in law, the petitioner would not deserve any consideration because of his mischievous conduct and accordingly I am not inclined to even consider the evidence of his sickness, which he had projected as a ground not to move on transfer and which apparently was only to avoid proceeding on transfer and nothing else. Hyper-tension is not a disease, which would make the petitioner to take rest for more than 2 years. The petitioner also kept silent against the order of his removal till the year 2010, when his earlier writ petition came up for hearing, which he withdrew. Apparently, the petitioner has abused the process of Court in this manner, for which his conduct needs to be deprecated. The writ petition accordingly is dismissed. January 19,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE