Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner joined service in the year 1964 as Temporary Engineer through the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala. Ultimately in the year 1980 he was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer. However,he became absent w.e.f. 08.04.1985. On that account he was chargesheeted and after holding an inquiry the competent authority passed the following order:- "NOW WHEREAS, after having satisfied himself that Sh. J.D.Jain, Executive Engineer (under suspension) committed gross misconduct by remaining wilfully absent from duty from8.4.85 to 20.3.86 and for not joining duty as Senior Design Engineer, Plant Design Directorate, Shahpurkandi in compliance with Punjab Government orders No. 2/9/87-IPPI (2)/6578-81 dated 20.3.87, the Government of Punjab in consultation with the Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala, exercising the powers conferred upon him under rule 5 read with rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 and all other powers enabling in this behalf,dismisses Sh.J.D.Jailn, Executive Engineer, (under suspension) from service with immediate effect." The petitioner has had long and convoluted litigation in this matter. At one stage the petitioner had filed review petition which has also been dismissed in the following terms:- "That the Government has considered carefully the review petition filed by Sh.J.D.Jain Executive Engineer (now dismissed). There is no any new point on the basis of which this petition be accepted. Therefore the above mentioned review petition of Sh.J.D.Jain now under dismissed is rejected and dismissal of his service is upheld." The petitioner who has appeared in person has vehemently challenged the inquiry proceedings as being completely opposed to the principles of natural justice. He has, however, not denied that after 8.4.1985 he never appeared for duty.
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has argued that the action of the petitioner in not attending duty ever since 8.4.1985 clearly portrays his lack of discipline and has thus tried to justify the order of dismissal. He has also argued that the order of review was passed in the year 1996 and this petition having been filed in the year 2009 is clearly barred by latches.;