P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present regular second appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Safidon and the learned Additional District Judge Jind, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and the first appeal against the same was also rejected.
(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay deputation allowance to him from 14.8.1995 onwards and directing the respondents to allow him to join his duties as Clerk-cum- Cashier.
(3.) The learned trial Court after a detailed consideration of the facts came to the following conclusion : "Keeping in view the arguments addressed by learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the records available on the file, I have hesitation to say that the plaintiff remained absent from his duties from 4.9.1995 to onwards which has been fully proved by defendant No. 1 by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence. As a matter of fact the record moved by the plaintiff in itself is proving that he remained absent from his duties and as per the rules of the bank if an employee reaches in his office after 9.45 am in that case the employee is not taken on the duty and absence of the employee can be marked due to coming late but in the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff could not prove that he remained present in the office and at the same time he maintained the head-quarter at Safidon. The pleadings of the plaintiff in itself are proving that from 4.9.1995 to onwards plaintiff did not come to the office because of the flood and this very fact has been fully proved by the plaintiff itself as pleadings in replication at Page No. 5 and Para No. 16 according to which plaintiff himself has stated that on 10.10. 1995 notice was issued to the defendants through Shri D.S. Chauhan, Advocate, from Bhiwani which is duly signed by the plaintiff and it is proving that plaintiff might have not come in the bank that is why he sent all the letters and C.L. By post and same were rejected by defendant No. 1." "All the documents of the plaintiff and the defendants have fully proved that the plaintiff never remained present in the bank for doing his duties that is why plaintiff was not paid the deputation allowance for the period which he remained absent from his duties. The most important document regarding showing the conduct of the plaintiff are Exhibit D56 and Exhibit D57 according to which plaintiff was placed under suspension for 269 days, 855 days, 268 days and total became 1396 days for remaining absent from duty, refusal from discharge his duty, disobedience and wilful insubodination and misbehave with the Senior Manager and leveling false and baseless allegations against the Seniors and that is why he remained suspended thrice i.e. 3.11.1983 to 28.7.1984, 23.7.1987 to 24.11.1989 and 26.10.1993 to 20.7.1994 and often the plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 31.1.1984, 8.2.1988, 22.4.1988, 24.11.1992, 2.1.1993 and 15.11.1993 for misconduct and misbehaviour, disobedience and for sending empty cigarette case under the registered cover to R.M. Kurukshetra and also for leveling false and baseless allegations against Dr. Darshan Singh, Senior Manager, Safidon. For his act, warning and stoppage of two increments on 24.11.1989 and 24.12.1993 and warning were made on 28.7.1984 and 8.7.1998. Both the documents are proving the conduct of the plaintiff and plaintiff is habitual absentee and was remained disrespectful negligent and non-supporting in his past. Accordingly, the defendants have fully disproved the case of the plaintiff for the claim of deputation allowance of the plaintiff. Both the counsel have pleaded well but I am satisfied with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the defendants whereas contentions raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff are manifestly unsustainable and same hereby stands scuttled down. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to the deputation allowance from 14.8.1995 to onwards and is not entitled to allow the plaintiff to join the duties because he had joined at Dhamtan Branch and even plaintiff has taken voluntary retirement. When issue No. 1 is not proved, then plaintiff is also not entitled to mandatory injunction. Hence both these issues are hereby decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff." ;