P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The trial Court as also the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff after examining the evidence on record affirming the finding of fact that the plaintiff was not present to his place of duty and had not rendered any service to the department. He was therefore, not entitled to salary for the said period. The trial court after considering the evidence produced by the defendant has recorded as hereunder:- "On the contrary, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of mandatory injunction because he was not coming on duty and, therefore, could not be allowed for that period to mark his attendance. When he has not done any work then he is not entitled for the salary for the alleged period. The defendants placed on file documents Ex. D1, Ex. D2, mark A, Ex. D4, Ex. D5, Ex. D6, Ex. D7, Ex. D9, Ex.D10, Ex.D12, Ex.D13. Ex.D14, Ex.DW3/1, Ex.DW3/2, Ex.DW3/3, Ex.DW3/4, Ex.DW 3/5, Ex.DW3/6, Ex.DW 3/7 to Ex.DW3/9 to prove that the plaintiff was absent from his duty and he has not given the charge intentionally and was not honest and sincere worker. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants also shown in court the attendance register in which against the question mark the plaintiff has tried his best to mark his presence in the attendance register. It is submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff owes Rs. 2700/- towards the department which he has collected by sale of ticket teachers welfare fund. In oral evidence, DW-1 Tara Chand Tiwari Principal Government, Masani Khol has deposed on oath that he was posted on the post of BEO Khol from April, 1989 to August, 1991. Sher Singh was posted in his office on the post of Assistant. He used to take illicit liquor. He has not deposited the amount of Rs. 2700/- in the office in spite of several request, his behaviour was not satisfactory and he made a complaint to the higher authorities regarding this. DW-2 Mohinder Dogra has deposed on oath that the plaintiff was absent from the period April, 1993 onwards. The plaintiff used to mark his presence forcibly in the attendance register. DW-3 Heera Mani has deposed on oath that the plaintiff has not given the charge to the department. Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants alleged that after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, it is well proved that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of mandatory injunction because he was not honest and sincere worker. He has tried to fabricate the record of the department. Therefore, his suit deserves to be dismissed. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of all the documents on the file this court finds that learned counsel on behalf of the defendants rightly contended that when the plaintiff was not present and has not rendered any service to the department then he is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction i.e. he could not be allowed to mark his presence in the attendance register. He is not entitled for the pay for the period of which he has not done any work. From the averments of DW-2 it is clear that the plaintiff did not come in the office after April, 1993. In fact while marking his attendance in the attendance register forcibly he tried to fabricate the record of the department. Therefore, after considering oral as well as documentary evidence this court comes to the conclusion that when the defendants proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the record of the department, then he is not entitled for the relief of the mandatory injunction. This court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff remained absent from duty. Therefore, the defendants cannot be directed to give him the pay for the period for which the plaintiff remained absent. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. I do not find any error of law or fact in the aforesaid finding. No question of law arises for determination in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.;