R.S.A. No.692 of 2000 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.692 of 2000 Date of decision:02.07.2010. The State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Baljinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the judgments rendered by the learned Trial Court, the learned First Appellate Court and the record that the initial absence of the plaintiff – respondent from duty was authorized inasmuch as he was on authorized leave for the initial leave period. Insofar as the subsequent period is concerned, there is not enough evidence to prove that it was authorized. The learned Trial Court non-suited the plaintiff – respondent, thereby upholding the order dated 11.04.1991 vide which the services of the plaintiff – respondent had been terminated. However, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding and ordered decretal of the suit on a finding that the plaintiff – respondent was not proved to have absented from duty. The relevant part of the finding is extracted hereasunder: - “Thus, it is apparent that the absence of the plaintiff for R.S.A. No.692 of 2000 -2- **** about four days was treated as leave without pay by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran. If plaintiff was granted leave without pay for four days on which he was absent from duty, as stated above, it cannot be said that plaintiff remained absent from duty. It is well settled rule of law that once an employee is granted leave of the kind due for the period in question, he cannot be treated to be absent from duty. Thus, in my opinion, the defendants have failed to prove that plaintiff remained absent from duty for the periods as mentioned in the written statement. The learned lower Court has, therefore, erred in holding that plaintiff remained absent from duty as pleaded by the defendants. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.1991 under the garb of Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, discharging the plaintiff from service, is wrong and illegal.” It was further held by the learned First Appellate Court that the impugned order of the discharge “amounted to order of dismissal which was a stigmatic order and as such the same could not be passed without holding a regular inquiry”. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE