RSA No.852 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.852 of 1993 Date of Decision: 27.04.2009 State of Punjab & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. Raj Kumar ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.R.L.Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellants. Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 852 and 854 of 1993 both titled State of Punjab & Anr.Vs. Raj Kumar, as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals. For the sake of brevity the facts are being taken from RSA No.852 of 1993 titled State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1992 passed by learned courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the orders of termination No.189/GM dated 4.1.1989 were illegal, mala fide, capricious and without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff and for mandatory RSA No.852 of 1993 2 injunction directing the defendant/appellants to treat him in service and pay him whole salary, stands decreed. Plaintiff/respondent joined the service as a mechanic with Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana in the year 1961. On 26.5.1987 the plaintiff gave application for grant of leave without pay w.e.f. 1.6.1987 to 31.5.1989 to enable him to go to Maharashtra for treatment of his wife. The case set up by the plaintiff/respondent was that his leave was recommended. However, in his absence in August, 1987 notice was given to him at his last known address which was said to have been received by his son who submitted reply to the notice, bringing to the notice of the appellant/defendants that the plaintiff was away to Maharashtra for treatment of his wife. In spite of reply, the defendant/appellants proceeded to hold an inquiry in his absence, without issuing notice or publication in the newspapers. On coming to know about the order of termination notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendants. On receipt of no reply, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Learned courts below decreed the suit and held the order of termination to be illegal and void, being in violation of principles of natural justice as well as against the service Rules governing the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/appellants have challenged the judgment and decree by claiming that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned courts bellow committed an error in decreeing the suit by relying upon Rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and appeal Rules) RSA No.852 of 1993 3 though it was not applicable to the facts of the present case? In support of substantial question of law raised learned Additional Advocate General contends that in the present case it was not open to the plaintiff to have left the station without first getting the leave sanctioned. It was his duty to have inquired about his leave application to find out whether it was accepted or not. It is further the case of the appellants that, in any case, registered notice as envisaged under section 22 of the Rules was sent calling upon the plaintiff/respondent to report for duty and it was only on his failure that the appellants served the respondent with charge sheet on his last known address and inquiry held thereafter. The contention on the face of it cannot be accepted as it is admitted position that in pursuance to the notice sent, the son of the plaintiff/respondent had informed that the plaintiff was not residing there and had gone to Maharashtra. In view of this fact brought on record that it was not a case where the plaintiff/respondent could be said to be evading service. In view of Rule 22 of the Rules, it was incumbent upon the appellants to have issued notice in the newspapers having circulation in Maharashtra. Even otherwise, in pursuance to the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below the plaintiff/respondent had joined duties and stands retired, on attaining the age of superannuation. The appeal has been rendered infructuus. Disposed of accordingly. 27.04.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge