IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18084 of 2008 H.S.Bajwa Vs. The New India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai and others Present: Mr.Deepak Nayyar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.Ramswaroop, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was working as a Senior Assistant with respondent-Department. He was posted at Divisional Office, Amritsar. The petitioner claims to have discharged his duties with ability and capabilities. The petitioner further states that there is no adverse remarks ever communicated to him. On 27.11.2006, the petitioner was removed from service with the allegation that he had remained absent for 134 days. Before passing the order of removal, the petitioner was served a charge sheet and thereafter a departmental enquiry was held. The petitioner was removed after following due procedure as required under the Rules applicable to the petitioner. The facts noticed from the record would also show that it is not the first time that the petitioner had absented. He had earlier been punished, which was conceded by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing. The petitioner filed a representation. It is alleged that without considering his explanation, the impugned punishment was imposed upon him. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 21.8.2007. After having availed his departmental remedies, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn this order of punishment. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has been fair in submitting that the petitioner had accepted his guilt during the Civil Writ Petition No.18084 of 2008 :2: enquiry and as such he would restrict his plea only in regard to quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner. As per the counsel, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is harsh and severe and no consideration was given to 27 years service rendered by the petitioner. Except for stating this fact that the petitioner had 27 years of service, nothing else is pointed out to highlight or to support the contention that the punishment is harsh and severe. I have not looked into the response filed by the respondents because of the objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not complied with the directions to deposit the costs, which was imposed on 23.11.2009. I still do not find any justification to hold that the punishment is harsh. The petitioner had earlier been punished for absence. The present absence was for a long period. Long service, though is a valid consideration to keep in view, yet the other facts can not be ignored. There is no indication available on record to hold that any relevant consideration was ignored and any irrelevant matter was considered to impose punishment. Still if the petitioner feels that any relevant consideration was ignored, he may file a representation on that count which may be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner would be at liberty to plead grant of benefits if the same could be so granted to him in accordance with law due to long service rendered by him with the respondents. Otherwise, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. May 18, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE