Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) The petitioner was serving as Stenographer Grade-II in the Sessions Division, Hisar. Vide memorandum dated 09.01.2006, he was served with a Charge-sheet containing as many as nine charges seeking his response to the charges. The petitioner submitted his reply. The District and Session Judge, Hisar, the Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the response of the petitioner, initiated regular enquiry which was entrusted to Mr. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar. The petitioner associated himself with the enquiry. On conclusion of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report dated 10.09.2008. On consideration of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-3) and also served a copy of the Enquiry Report. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply. On consideration of the reply, Show Cause Notice proposing to impose penalty of dismissal from service was served upon the petitioner. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide his order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the petitioner from service. This order was communicated to the petitioner vide memo dated 12.12.2008. The order of dismissal was challenged by the petitioner in Service Appeal before this Court. The Hon'ble Judge after hearing the appeal, vide his order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) dismissed the same upholding the order of dismissal. The petitioner has challenged both the orders i.e. dismissal from service (Annexure P-4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed in the Service Appeal (Annexure P-8) by this Court.
(2.) From the perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that there were two sets of charges against the petitioner. The first charge against him was that on 06.07.2005, he was given dictation in the open Court by Mr. Kamal Kant, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, in case titled State v. Mangled @ Deep . The petitioner, however, typed his own version of the matter. On being confronted by the Presiding Officer, the petitioner answered that he could not work in that Court and threw an application asking for leave from 07.07.2005 to 24.07.2005 on the ground of repair of house and urgent work and left the Court. The petitioner applied for extension of leave for 25.07.2005 and 28.07.2005 on the basis of some medical certificates and thereafter sent telegrams seeking extension of medical leave upto 01.09.2005 and thereafter upto 06.09.2005 without any medical certificates. Even thereafter, the petitioner remained absent from duty on 07.09.2005 and 08.09.2005 without any intimation. He was asked to join his duties vide letter dated 09.09.2005, whereupon the petitioner sent a telegram for medical leave upto 15.09.2005, again without medical certificate. He, however, joined duties on 16.09.2005. Even though, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, but he did not submit his explanation and only stated that he was suffering from hepatitis. One of the charges was also about absent from duty from 13.10.2005 to 23.10.2005 and on subsequent dates as well.
(3.) Mr. RK Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions; (i) that the charge against the petitioner that he typed a different version than what was dictated to him by the Presiding Officer, has not been established in the enquiry and that (ii) the charge of remaining absent is not of a serious nature and later produced his medical certificates to justify the absence from duty.;