M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant. The petitioner -appellant has approached this Court by filing CWP No. 20614 of 2002 challenging order of his termination dated 28.2.1999 (P -11), passed by the Chief Engineer, Punjab, as well as order dated 6.6.2002 (P -16) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner appellant. It has remained undisputed that he was working as a Sectional Officer in the Department of Public Works (Buildings and Roads) Patiala. He was sanctioned 55 days earned leave from 5.3.1994 to 31.5.1994 enabling him to visit Canada to meet his daughter and arranging her marriage. He applied for extension of leave, which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.1994 (P -3). His subsequent request for extension of leave was also rejected vide order dated 3.2.1995 (P -4).
(2.) ON . 23.9.1996, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner -appellant for willful absence and not joining the duty. After lapse of 11 months, he submitted reply to the charge sheet on 19.8.1997 stating that his wife met with an accident on 31.5.1995 and he could: not re -join his duty because his wife was undergoing treatment. An inquiry was conducted against him in which the Enquiry Officer exonerated him (P -8). On 18.12.1998 (P -9), the Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R), Patiala, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner -appellant wherein a dissenting note to the following effect was also recorded for not agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer: - Shri Nachhattar Singh, Junior Engineer remained abroad from 7.3.1994 to 6.1.1998 i.e. 46 months whereas leave was granted to him only for a period of two months. According to the Memo No. 354/Establishment Branch No. 2 dated 24.04.1992 of this office, while issuing you No Objection Certificate for getting the passport made it was made clear that if you do not come back after the expiry of leave your services can be terminated. The Junior Engineer also did not give his address of Canada. On 1.1.1999 (P -10) the petitioner -appellant furnished reply to the said show cause notice, which was not found satisfactory and by an order dated 28.2.1999, the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner -appellant (P -11). The petitioner -appellant challenged the said order by filing CWP No. 16027 of 1999, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail the remedy of statutory appeal, vide order dated 18.11.1999. Later on he filed an appeal, which was eventually rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 6.6.2002 (P -16).
(3.) THE primary argument raised by the petitioner -appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the respondents have not taken into account 26 years of service rendered by him while terminating his service, which according to him entitles him right of grant of pension. The submission, thus, made was that instead of terminating his services, he ought to have been retired compulsorily. The other contention urged was that the disciplinary authority has not taken into account the explanation furnished by him. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing as under: - In the present case, the petitioner had left for Canada on the pretext that his daughter was to be married. He left India on 5th March, 1994. His leave commenced from 7th March, 1994 and came to an end on 31st May, 1994. His request for extension of leave was declined on 29th November, 1994 and subsequently, on 3rd February, 1995. In reply (Annexure P -6) to the chargesheet (Annexure P -5), the petitioner stated that his wife met with an accident on 31st May, 1995, i.e. one year after the expiry of the period of leave. Reply to the chargesheet was sent on August 19, 1997 and it was stated therein that he may rejoin his duty in the last week of December 1997. The Enquiry Officer was informed that the petitioner only joined his duty on 6th January, 1998. Thus, the punishing authority was right in holding that the petitioner had stayed abroad for 46 months, i.e. from 7th March, 1994 to 6th January, 1998, whereas he was granted leave for only two months. The explanation furnished by the petitioner has rightly been rejected, as the same was not convincing. Therefore, following the mandate of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court that the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review shall not normally substitute its own conclusion, qua the quantum of penalty, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.;