CWP-12533-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 106 RANDHIR SINGH STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. R. K. Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The quashing the order Authority dated the petitioner has been with cumulative effect as leave without pay. order dated 08.09.1999, extraordinary leave, 2. As per facts on record, in brief, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the respondent from duty from termination order was challenged by him by filing CWP was disposed of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: RANDHIR SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia quashing the order dated 12.07.1999, as also the dated 18.10.2000, Annexures P-8 and P the petitioner has been awarded punishment with cumulative effect for absence from duty without pay. The petitioner has also sought quashing of consequential 08.09.1999, Annexure P-11, whereby he has been granted extraordinary leave, from 08.02.1990 to 19.11.1997 As per facts on record, in brief, the petitioner was appointed as respondent Department on 25.01.1977 from 24.03.1986, his services were terminated on 26.12.1986 termination order was challenged by him by filing CWP disposed of on 19.09.1997 with the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12533-2001 Decided On: 22.05.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari as also the order passed by the Appellate 8 and P-10, respectively, whereby punishment of withholding one increment and the period has been treated sought quashing of consequential , whereby he has been granted 08.02.1990 to 19.11.1997. As per facts on record, in brief, the petitioner was appointed as 25.01.1977. On account of his absence , his services were terminated on 26.12.1986. The termination order was challenged by him by filing CWP-9670-1997, which following order: certiorari ppellate , whereby one increment treated sought quashing of consequential , whereby he has been granted As per facts on record, in brief, the petitioner was appointed as absence . The , which Aman Dua 2025.05.30 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-12533-20 been given go reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. services of the p Annexure P the petitioner is to be taken back in service. However, the respondents, if so advised, can take action against the petitioner in accordance wi Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined back 2.1. Later, he was issued a chargesheet dated 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and ground that he remained absent from duty from for leaving the country departmental enquiry was conducted and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment from duty was treated as leave without pay. The statutory appeal against the punishment order was dis Thereafter, vide separate order dated extraordinary leave (EOL) 3. In this factual background, learned senior counsel has contended that the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the directions issued by this Court order was quashed Resultantly, the period of se 26.12.1986 to the date of joining, i.e., absence from 2001 -2- In this case, the principles of natural justice have totally been given go-bye and it would have been fair to given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. For the fore-going reasons, the order of termination of services of the petitioner dated 26.12.1986, copy of which is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, the petitioner is to be taken back in service. However, the respondents, if so advised, can take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined back in service Later, he was issued a chargesheet dated 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and he remained absent from duty from leaving the country without permission departmental enquiry was conducted and he was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect; the period of his absence was treated as leave without pay. The statutory appeal against the punishment order was dismissed by the competent Thereafter, vide separate order dated 08.09.1999 extraordinary leave (EOL) from 08.02.1990 to In this factual background, learned senior counsel has contended impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the directions issued by this Court. In the first round of litigation order was quashed with the direction to take the petitioner back in service. Resultantly, the period of service from the date of termination, i.e., to the date of joining, i.e., 19.11.1997 duty, nor can the petitioner be considered on EOL In this case, the principles of natural justice have totally bye and it would have been fair to given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. going reasons, the order of termination of etitioner dated 26.12.1986, copy of which is , is quashed with a direction that the petitioner is to be taken back in service. However, the respondents, if so advised, can take action against the petitioner Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. service on 19.11.1997. Later, he was issued a chargesheet dated 16.03.1998, under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, on the he remained absent from duty from 24.03.1986 to 07.02.1990, and without permission of the Government. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and he was awarded punishment of with cumulative effect; the period of his absence was treated as leave without pay. The statutory appeal against the ompetent authority on 27.08.1999. 08.09.1999, he was granted 08.02.1990 to 19.11.1997. In this factual background, learned senior counsel has contended impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the In the first round of litigation the termination with the direction to take the petitioner back in service. rvice from the date of termination, i.e., 19.11.1997, cannot be treated as willful considered on EOL without pay In this case, the principles of natural justice have totally bye and it would have been fair to given going reasons, the order of termination of etitioner dated 26.12.1986, copy of which is is quashed with a direction that the petitioner is to be taken back in service. However, the respondents, if so advised, can take action against the petitioner , under Rule , on the , and A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and he was awarded punishment of with cumulative effect; the period of his absence was treated as leave without pay. The statutory appeal against the . , he was granted In this factual background, learned senior counsel has contended impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal being in violation of the the termination with the direction to take the petitioner back in service. rvice from the date of termination, i.e., , cannot be treated as willful without pay Aman Dua 2025.05.30 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-12533-20 for this period. stands reinstated with all consequential benefits, any service benefit for this period have been passed by treating him absent from duty. 4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, impugned orders conducted in accordance with the Rules by following the Justice. She further contend CWP-9670-1997 termination order benefits, which were never granted dated 19.09.1997 stage by filing the instant petition. 5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 6. It is an undisputed fact on re working as Clerk in the Department from 24.03.1986 approached this Court by filing CWP order of termination petition was, however, disposed of on the ground the respondents to take th granted to the respondents to take action against No other benefit was granted to him regular disciplinary enquiry was held, resulting in passing of the impugned 2001 -3- for this period. Once the order of termination has been set aside, the petitioner reinstated with all consequential benefits, service benefit for this period, nor can the impugned orders of punishment have been passed by treating him absent from duty. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, impugned orders have rightly been passed after regular disciplinary enquiry conducted in accordance with the Rules by following the She further contended that in the earlier round of litigation 1997, the petitioner had not only termination order and reinstatement, but also , which were never granted while disposing of 19.09.1997. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim those benefits at this stage by filing the instant petition. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been It is an undisputed fact on record that the petitioner working as Clerk in the Department, remained absent from duty 24.03.1986, leading to his termination on 26.12.1986 approached this Court by filing CWP-9670- order of termination, reinstatement and the consequential benefits , however, disposed of by setting aside the termination order on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice the respondents to take the petitioner back in service granted to the respondents to take action against No other benefit was granted to him, though claimed disciplinary enquiry was held, resulting in passing of the impugned has been set aside, the petitioner reinstated with all consequential benefits, and cannot be deprived of , nor can the impugned orders of punishment have been passed by treating him absent from duty. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the have rightly been passed after regular disciplinary enquiry conducted in accordance with the Rules by following the Principles of Natural that in the earlier round of litigation by filing not only sought quashing of the also all the consequential service disposing of his petition, vide order . Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim those benefits at this Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been cord that the petitioner, who was remained absent from duty with effect leading to his termination on 26.12.1986. The petitioner -1997, seeking quashing of the the consequential benefits. The by setting aside the termination order only of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, and directing e petitioner back in service. The liberty was also granted to the respondents to take action against him in accordance with law. , though claimed. Pursuant thereto, a disciplinary enquiry was held, resulting in passing of the impugned has been set aside, the petitioner cannot be deprived of , nor can the impugned orders of punishment contends that the have rightly been passed after regular disciplinary enquiry Principles of Natural by filing of the consequential service , vide order . Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim those benefits at this Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been , who was with effect The petitioner , seeking quashing of the he only , and directing was also in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, a disciplinary enquiry was held, resulting in passing of the impugned Aman Dua 2025.05.30 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-12533-20 punishment order by this Court dated 19.09.1997 petitioner back in service, he has no right to claim consequential service benefits pursuant to setting aside of the termination order. that his termination order had been set aside of termination was passed without affording petitioner, it had in accordance with law. which were duly proved that the order his absence from duty subsequent thereto till joining back the 19.11.1997, cannot be taken as willful absence or the punishment. explanation for about nine months view thereof, disproportionate. 7. As per charge no.1 in the chargesheet, the petitioner willfully absented from duty pursuant to the order passed by this Court 19.11.1997, and vide impugned order dated sanctioned EO this Court dated consequential benefits to the petitioner after setting aside the order of termination, it cannot be 2001 -4- order. Once the claim for consequential benefits was not granted by this Court in the earlier round of litigation dated 19.09.1997, and the respondents were petitioner back in service, he has no right to claim consequential service pursuant to setting aside of the termination order. that his termination order had been set aside on of termination was passed without affording an it had to be set aside with liberty to in accordance with law. He was not absolved of the charges of misconduct which were duly proved against him subsequently. the order of termination dated 26.12.1986 his absence from duty subsequent thereto till joining back the , cannot be taken as willful absence or the punishment. Nevertheless, he remained for about nine months from 24.03.1986 to view thereof, the punishment imposed upon him cannot be termed disproportionate. As per charge no.1 in the chargesheet, the petitioner willfully absented from duty from 24.03.1986 to 07.02.1990 pursuant to the order passed by this Court, he joined back , and vide impugned order dated EOL from 08.02.1990 to 19.11.1997 dated 19.09.1997, as already observed, did not grant any consequential benefits to the petitioner after setting aside the order of termination, it cannot be accepted that his period of absence prior to joining claim for consequential benefits was not granted in the earlier round of litigation that was decided, vide order were only directed to take the petitioner back in service, he has no right to claim consequential service pursuant to setting aside of the termination order. It was not a case on merits. Only because the order an opportunity of hearing to the with liberty to the respondents to take action absolved of the charges of misconduct, against him subsequently. However, it is also a fact 26.12.1986 has been set aside, therefore, his absence from duty subsequent thereto till joining back the service on , cannot be taken as willful absence or a circumstance to impose he remained absent from duty without any 24.03.1986 to 26.12.1986, and in the punishment imposed upon him cannot be termed As per charge no.1 in the chargesheet, the petitioner willfully 07.02.1990. As aforementioned, , he joined back in service on , and vide impugned order dated 08.09.1999, he has been 19.11.1997. Since the order passed by , as already observed, did not grant any consequential benefits to the petitioner after setting aside the order of his period of absence prior to joining claim for consequential benefits was not granted , vide order only directed to take the petitioner back in service, he has no right to claim consequential service case nly because the order of hearing to the to take action , However, it is also a fact set aside, therefore, service on to impose without any , and in the punishment imposed upon him cannot be termed As per charge no.1 in the chargesheet, the petitioner willfully , service on , he has been . Since the order passed by , as already observed, did not grant any consequential benefits to the petitioner after setting aside the order of his period of absence prior to joining Aman Dua 2025.05.30 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-12533-20 the service on 19.11.199 can be taken to the impugned orders 8. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands dismissed. 22.05.2025 Ad 2001 -5- the service on 19.11.1997, was in any way regularised. Hence, can be taken to the impugned orders treating the In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? , was in any way regularised. Hence, no exception treating the period as EOL. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No no exception In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition and it stands Aman Dua 2025.05.30 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document