Civil Writ Petition No. 16936 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16936 of 1996 Date of decision: July 07, 2011 Krishan Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goel, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226 the Constitution of India for issuance of direction to the respondent to finalize the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner or directing the respondents either to grant pay or some allowances during the pendency of departmental enquiry or in the alternative allowing the petitioner to join duties till the enquiry is finalized. The petitioner joined the services in the year 1965 and thereafter in the year 1976, he went on leave w.e.f. 1.8.1976 to 15.8.1976 and thereafter he applied for earned leave for six months, but he without knowing the earlier leave application again applied for earned leave in the year 1977 for two years. But he did not join his duties till 1986. On 20.8.1986, the petitioner made an application to Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur to allow him to join duty but the Civil Surgeon did not allow him to do so. Consequently, he filed a civil suit before the trial court, wherein it was observed that the plaintiff cannot be legally allowed to join duties so such directions could not be issued to the respondents. He must wait and see the result of the enquiry initiated against him. Now this writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent directing them to finalize the departmental enquiry pending against him on the basis of the charge sheet Annexure P6 in shortest possible time and also seeking direction to the respondents either to grant Civil Writ Petition No. 16936 of 1996 -2- pay or allowances during the pendency of the enquiry or in the alternative the petitioner should be allowed to join his duties. Arguments heard. It is a case of willful absence from duty with permission. The petitioner had joined service in the year 1965, therefore, he must have retired by 1996 i.e. before filing of this writ petition. The petitioner now wants to encash his willful absence. Even no enquiry could be held against a retired employee. In any case, the petitioner having absented himself from the service and without knowing that his previous earned leave for six months has been sanctioned or not, again applied for earned leave for two years in the year 1977. Again, without knowing that whether his leave application was accepted or not he came after nine years and asked the government to allow him to join service which is not fair on his part. When his first leave application has not been allowed, he was not entitled to again apply for earned leave. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. July 07, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge