N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated 9. 11. 1987 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court has been reversed thus dismissing the suit filed by him.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 3. 8. 1982 passed by the defendant terminating his services has illegal and void. As per narration in the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiff joined as a work-charged at Sub Office, Daroli Kalan, and was permanent w. e. f. 4. 7. 1972 against the post of Assistant Lineman. While he was posted at Alawalpur, he proceeded on leave on account of sickness of his wife. Since neither Sub Divisional Officer nor Line Superintendent was present at that time on that day, he proceeded on leave by filing application for 8 days casual leave from 21. 12. 1981 to 31. 12. 1981. Thereafter he was not allowed to job duty, hence the present suit. Defendants filed written statement and controverted the various material averments made by the plaintiff. As per defendants version, plaintiff left the office without seeking leave and when called upon to join duty, he did not turn up. Plaintiff was intimated a number of times through registered letters to resume duty but to no effect As per report of the postal authorities en the registered cover addressed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had left for Iraq. Accordingly, notices were got published in English, Punjabi and Hindi newspapers asking the plaintiff to resume duty. Since there was no response from the plaintiff, the order of termination dated 3. 8. 1982 was passed which is strictly in accordance with law. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court : (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. (2) Whether the impugned order dated 3. 8. 82 is illegal, null and void? OPP. (3) Relief. Issue No. 1 was not pressed by the parties. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and so the trial Court decreed his suit. On appeal, learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court in respect of issue No. 2 holding that the termination of the plaintiff was in accordance with law. Making reference to Exhibit D-15 termination order, it has been stated that the same was passed in accordance with Regulation 14 (a) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971. On perusal of evidence, it was also noticed that, in fact the plaintiff left for Iraq and so neither responded to the registered notice sent to him nor to the insertions made in this regard in the Daily Newspapers referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court terming the same to be wholly illegal and so unsustainable in law, Elaborating, the counsel urged that in fact, the plaintiff reported for duty on 31. 12. 1981 but S. D. 6. Incharge did not allow him to join his duty and so the plaintiff could not be faulted on this account. Even otherwise, the services of the plaintiff were terminated without holding regular inquiry and also without giving a reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff to place his view point. In additional thereto, it has been urged that the provisions contained in Regulation 14 (ii) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'regulations 1971') confer drastic powers on the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the holding of enquiry for the, reasons to be recorded in writing. Even if it is presumed that Regulation 14 (ii) of the Regulations 1971 is valid, yet it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authorities to afford the plaintiff an opportunity in respect of quantum of punishment to be inflicted upon him. Plaintiff, admittedly, has not been beard by his higher authorities in this regard as well. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents besides high lighting the proved fact of the plaintiff-proceeding without leave, non-joining despite various registered communications sent to him by the department ultimately leading to insertions of notices in the Daily newspapers was by itself sufficient to prove that the plaintiff not only left the office without procuring leave but otherwise too remained out of country for a pretty long time. On these proved facts, no other course was left open to the authorities except to invoke the provisions of Regulation 14 (ii) of the Regulation 1971 and so dispense with the inquiry. This way the order of termination passed against the plaintiff Exhibit D-15 was according to law and otherwise too just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appeal is devoid of any merit It has been proved on record that the plaintiff left the office without seeking permission from the higher authorities on 21. 12. 1981 and did not join thereafter till the time the present suit was filed on 10. 4. 1985. The lower appellate court on the basis of evidence has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not join duty despite the, communication sent to him in this regard through registered post. The insertion in the daily newspaper could not invoke any response from the plaintiff. Since postal authorities, as per notings on the registered covers addressed to the plaintiff, made mention that the plaintiff has gone to Iraq, the authorities chose to terminate his services invoking the provisions of Regulation 14 (ii) of the Regulations, 1971, which reads as under:regulation 14 (ii) "where the punishing authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these regulations the punishing authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such' orders thereon as it deems fit. " The punishing authority after taking note of the communication addressed and sent to the plaintiff at his permanent address as well as the insertion in the dailies, namely, Daily Ajit, Daily Tribune and Daily Punjab Kesari, came to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry In the present case and so invoked the special provisions contained in Regulation 14 (ii) of (he Regulations 1971, thus removing him from service i. e. for having wilfully absented from duty. 8. To be fair to the counsel, it would be appropriate to briefly deal with the judgments cited by him hi case reported as Dr. J. N. Bhatia v. State of Haryana, 1989 (5) S. L. R. 340 and Ex-Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab, 1990 (2) R. S. J. 716, In Dr. J. N. Bhatia's case (supra), the court has rightly come to the conclusion that the enquiry can Only be dispensed with when it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. To the similar effect is the ratio in Sub Inspector Mohinder Singh Cheema's case (supra ). It is quite a different matter that on facts' Court came to the conclusion that such an order could not be passed. In the present case, there is no material on record on the basis of which it could be deducted that the plaintiff was prevented from responding to the various communications sent by the department asking him to join duty. In fact, nothing has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant as regards the factual assertion made by the department and otherwise too proved on record. There is no denial to the specific assertion that the plaintiff, in fact, left the country sometime in the year 1982 and returned in 1985. Thus, I find no merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are affirmed. 9. As a last resort, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that keeping in view the length of service rendered by the plaintiff add also the fact that the plaintiff has remained unemployed during the these years, suitable directions be given to the respondents to give him fresh employment. The plaintiff in that case will not press either for the continuity of service or for protection of his pay. Counsel for the respondents, however, has expressed his inability in this regard as well. In this view of the matter, no Such directions can be given. Dismissed. No order as to costs.;