IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3156 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 22, 2008 JAGDEV SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of fact. As per the pleaded case of the plaintiff, he had joined service as Gram Gram Sewak in Block Ferozepur on 17.10.1968. He continued to work to the best of his ability in different blocks in Punjab till 21.5.1998 and, thereafter, was transferred to Block Development and Panchayat Office, Jalalabad, on 22.5.1998. As per the promotion list released on 21.11.1997, the plaintiff ranked first amongst the probable candidates to be promoted as Panchayat Officers. The plaintiff had no disqualification for promotion as Panchayat Officer, however, defendant No.3-Harinder Singh Saran, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Ferozepur, RSA 3156 of 2007 2 District Ferozepur, intentionally and mischievously, on account of personal grudge, did not forward the record of the plaintiff on account of which defendants No.5 to 60 had been promoted, however, the plaintiff was not promoted. The plaintiff further made a claim to salary for the period November, 1997 and March, 1998 to May, 1998, which had been denied without any legal reason, as per the pleaded case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been non-suited while noticing the conduct of the plaintiff during the period of his service. It has been noticed, on the basis of evidence, that the plaintiff willfully absented from duty. A show- cause notice dated 18.11.1997 (Exhibit D-1) was issued. The plaintiff failed to attend official meetings with regard to BPL Survey and auction of Panchayat land, regarding which intimation was sent to him vide letter dated 20.4.1998 (Exhibit D-3). The plaintiff failed to perform his duty with regard to disbursement of grants issued by the Punjab Government, regarding which information was sent on 20.1.1998 (Exhibit D-4). The plaintiff furnished false information claiming to have been injured in an accident. When he was asked to furnish medical certificate from Civil Surgeon and a police report, vide letter (Exhibit D-5), lame excuses were made. No such certificate was sent. Accordingly, his salary was not paid for the period. The service record (Exhibit D-7) of the plaintiff was sent to the Under Secretary, Punjab Government. His Annual Confidential Reports were also sent to the Government vide letter dated 2.9.1998 (Exhibit D-8). Various letters were issued but the plaintiff failed to RSA 3156 of 2007 3 submit any reply to these letters. The leave for the period from 20.4.1998 to 15.5.1998 was not sanctioned for want of requisite medical certificate. In para-17 of the judgment of the trial Court, it has also been noticed that DW-1 Harjinder Singh Saran had deposed to the effect that on the basis of letter dated 31.8.1998 (Exhibit D-9), an F.I.R. was registered against the plaintiff. A copy of the F.I.R. was produced as Mark 'A'. As against this overwhelming evidence showing the conduct of the plaintiff, the plaintiff in his pleadings has only mentioned that he was doing his duties properly. Certain witnesses were produced to say that he had been regularly working with various Panchayats during the period. However, in the face of the documentary evidence, noticed above, no explanation could be given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been able to produce his service record or by summoning the record to establish the case for promotion or for payment of his salary. On perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I find that the conclusions drawn are based on evidence. The substantial questions of law as framed in para-5 of the grounds of appeal, are vague in so much as they only refer to the promotion of persons junior to the appellant. In the grounds of appeal, in the context of the findings recorded by the courts below, there is no explanation. Learned counsel for the appellant has not appeared. Even on the last date of hearing, a request for an adjournment was made. I am not inclined to adjourn the case yet again, the appeal itself having been filed on 25.7.2007. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere RSA 3156 of 2007 4 with the reasoned judgments of the courts below. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. April 22, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE