IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5118 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5.5.2008 Ram Niwas Jindal Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 10.1.1994 (P/5), vide which, punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments was imposed upon him and it was also ordered that period falling between 4.11.1991 to 21.3.1993 be treated as absence from duty. Further challenge is to the order dated 9.8.2002 (P/7), vide which after superannuation of the petitioner, it was ordered that in view of order, referred to above, absence period be treated as ‘break in service’ and on account of that, pension and leave encashment etc. be not granted to the petitioner. Challenge is also to the order dated 20.1.2003 (P/8). Upon notice, reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that in view of absence from duty, the period has rightly been treated as ‘break in service’ in view of Rule 3.17(A)(e) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II. It has also been mentioned that earlier also, the petitioner came Civil Writ Petition No.5118 of 2006 to this Court and he withdrew his writ petition, laying challenge to the orders, referred to above, on 21.8.2003. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the records that vide order passed in the year 1994, for remaining absent from duty, punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments was awarded to the petitioner. Vide that order, period in question was also treated as absence from duty and leave was declined to the petitioner for the above said period. Probably, without knowing consequences of the latter part of the order, the petitioner failed to challenge the same before the appellate authority. In view of order passed in the year 1994, on account of absence and keeping in view the rules, period in question was treated as break in service and pension was declined to the petitioner on his superannuation on 31.8.2005. It appears that by realizing impact of order referred to above, the petitioner filed an appeal in the year 2003 and in view of pendency of appeal, writ petition was withdrawn. Appeal has now been disposed of on 17.2.2005 (P/11). That order is also under challenge in this writ petition. Perusal of order Annexure P/11 indicates that the appeal was dismissed on account of limitation. We feel that it was a case where the appellate authority was required to look into merits of the case because otherwise the consequences of order passed in the year 1994, would prove to be very fatal to the petitioner. For remaining absent, punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments was inflicted upon him and by treating period in dispute as absence from duty, naturally, he will forfeit his entire service of 29 years, which would amount to grave injustice to the petitioner. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5118 of 2006 In view of facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition to a limited extent, quash order Annexure P/11 and direct the appellate authority to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. While passing that order, the appellate authority will also consider as to in what manner, period of absence is to be treated. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate authority on 21.5.2008, who shall decide the appeal within a period of two months thereafter. The petitioner be at liberty to file amended grounds of appeal before the appellate authority. (Jasbir Singh) Judge May 05, 2008 (K.C. Puri) gk Judge 3