CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113) CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 Date of Decision : 02.07.2025 Deepinderdeep Singh Dhillon ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate and Ms. Kiran, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral) CM-8757-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the accompanying application seeking restoration of the writ petition. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite. Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 2 147 days in filing the accompanying application seeking restoration of the writ petition is condoned. CM-8758-CWP-2025 Present application has been filed for recalling the order dated 27.11.2024, by which, the present writ petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated 27.11.2024 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. CWP-8871-2018 1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) by which, the services of the petitioner- employee have been terminated under the provisions of Rule 7 of Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (here in after referred to as ‘1994 Rules’). 2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the issue in hand. 3. The petitioner competed for the post of Data Base Administrator which post was advertised by the Punjab Public Service Commission and was ultimately appointed on 24.11.2015. The petitioner joined the said post in the Office of the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission on 07.01.2016. After joining, the petitioner remained absent from 27.09.2016 to 22.11.2016 and a show cause notice was issued to him on 22.11.2016 Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 3 (Annexure P-2) so as to explain as to why he remained absent for a period of two months starting from 27.09.2016 till 22.11.2016. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice that he is under depression on account of misbehavior of a colleague. 4. In order to find out the truth, the Under Secretary of the Department was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to look into the allegation of unauthorized absence of the petitioner-employee and vide enquiry report dated 29.09.2016, the allegations that petitioner-employee was not punctual in discharging the duties were proved. In the enquiry also, it had come on record that while in service also, the petitioner-employee never performed the duties as required and he used to disobey the office timings for performing the duties. Further, it is a matter of fact that the petitioner never joined back the department after his absence which started from 27.09.2016. 5. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances that the petitioner-employee remained absent from 27.09.2016 till 22.11.2016, the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) was passed by the Chief Secretary that the petitioner is not fit to continue in service and his services were terminated during the period probation under 1994 Rules. The aforementioned order is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employee submits that the petitioner-employee wanted to discharge the duties but due to a colleague, who was harassing him, he could not perform the duties and, therefore, the non-performance of the duty or remaining away from the duty was not intentional but was due to the said circumstances which led to him Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 4 into depression, this fact should be kept in mind while deciding whether the petitioner is a fit employee to continue in service on the post of Data Base Administrator on which post he was appointed after following due process required for the appointment on the said post. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employee further submits that terminating the services of the petitioner-employee during the period of probation on the ground of absence is also stigmatic and, therefore, the order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) is otherwise liable to be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that in the present case, the petitioner-employee was on a probation and he did not perform the duties for a sufficiently long time without any valid justification and despite issuance of notice in the newspaper asking the petitioner to join the services, he still never joined. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the ground being taken by the petitioner-employee for his absence that he was depressed due to the misbehavior of a colleague in the office, the same is incorrect and further, no record of the medical illness has been brought on record either before the authorities concerned or even before this Court to show that the petitioner-employee was under depression and was not fit to perform the duties hence, once an enquiry has been conducted into the allegations of absence by the petitioner-employee which have been proved, the order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed by the competent authority is perfectly valid and legal. Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 5 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 9. Certain facts are conceded that the petitioner-employee was on probation when his services were terminated by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner-employee was not performing the duties at the time when his services were terminated. 10. The only argument which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-employee to challenge the aforementioned impugned order is that the same is stigmatic and further that the absence of the petitioner- employee was not voluntarily but was forced one due to depression which he got because of the misbehavior of a colleague while performing the duties. 11. With regard to the said argument, it may be noticed that during the period of probation, in case the conduct of an employee is not satisfactory, an order simplicitor can be passed discharging the said employee from service. 12. Further, in case an employee has misconducted even during the period of probation and the said misconduct has been enquired into and a finding has been recorded then even on the basis of the said misconduct, the services of an employee can also be terminated. In the present case, the services of the petitioner have been terminated during the period of probation on the ground of misconduct which was proved by holding a enquiry. That being so, it cannot be said that the order dated 05.01.2018 (Annexure P-10) passed against the petitioner-employee while terminating Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CM-8757-CWP-2025 in/and CM-8758-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-8871-2018 6 his services on the ground of unauthorized absence is stigmatic or is violated of provisions of law. 13. The other argument which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the absence was not voluntarily but was forced one due to depression. Nothing evident has come on record that any medical record has been produced before the authorities concerned showing his illness. Further, even in the reply given, the depression suffered by the petitioner-employee has been mentioned but without there being any supporting document of the Doctors that the petitioner-employee was unfit to perform the duties. Even before this Court, no such medical record has been produced that the absence of the petitioner-employee was not voluntarily but was forced one due to the depression being suffered by the petitioner. Hence, in the absence of any such material fact brought on record, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was suffering from depression which made him unfit to perform the duties cannot be accepted. 13. No other argument is raised. 14. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the present petition. 15. Dismissed. 16. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. July 02, 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Kanchan 2025.07.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment