CWP NO.14194 OF 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 29.5.2009 Gurdev Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Deepak Nayar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner was serving as Driver in the Health & Family Welfare Department, Punjab. He proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 22.10.1998 to 17.8.1999 alongwith No Objection from the respondents to visit New York (USA). It is stated that the family of the petitioner was residing at New York (USA) and he proceeded on leave with No Objection from the respondents. He was due to join by 18.8.1999, but he did not join on expiry of the period of leave. It is stated that the petitioner suffered fracture of the leg and thus applied for extension of leave upto 17.5.2000. However, his request was rejected vide order dated 6.9.1999. It is further stated that on 1.5.2000, CWP NO.14194 OF 2006 2 due to serious family problem, he again applied for extension of leave from 17.5.2000 to 17.5.200. On 24.4.2001, again showing some domestic problem, the petitioner applied for further extension of leave from 17.5.2001 to 17.5.2002 which was rejected vide order dated 7.6.2001 (Annexure P-1). On account of absence from duty, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet. Respondents were not satisfied with the reply and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.12.2002 and held that all the charges have been proved against the petitioner. The enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and reply asked for. The petitioner, however, made an application for seeking premature retirement. The request for premature retirement was rejected on 13.1.2003. The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and passed the impugned order dated 9.5.2003 (Annexure P-10) whereby the petitioner stands dismissed and the period of absence has been treated as dies-non. An appeal preferred against the dismissal order also stands dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal in the present petition. The only argument advanced during the course of hearing is that the petitioner could not join the services on account of fracture of leg and thereafter due to family circumstances. It is further argued that the petitioner has rendered more than 20 years of service and thus he is entitled to be granted the pensionary benefits. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the request for premature retirement has been wrongly rejected. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that there is no challenge to validity of the enquiry made by the respondents. The disciplinary proceedings have not been challenged on any valid ground. The petitioner CWP NO.14194 OF 2006 3 has been dismissed from service on the basis of valid departmental enquiry. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 29.5.2009 MFK