S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed in Minor Irrigation Tabeweli Corporation as Peon on 5.5.1979. He remained in service upto 5.5.1998. Thereafter, he was appointed by way of transfer in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') by order dated 24.4.1998. The petitioner joined with District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind-respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') and continued to perform the duties satisfactorily. From 4.3.2002, the petitioner could not perform his duties as he was suffering from Psychiatric disorder and he was under treatment. Son of the petitioner informed the respondents about the ailment of the petitioner. By letter dated 24.4.2002, he requested that his father be sanctioned leave as he is not in a position to attend to his duties. The respondents were also informed that the petitioner will join duties on recovery. On 16.4.2002, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice asking for his explanation as he had been found to be absent from duty from 4.3.2002. The petitioner was asked to give the reply within seven days. Again a notice was issued on 21.6.2.002 seeking the explanation of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 26.3.2003, the petitioner has been removed from service. The order clearly states that the petitioner has been absent from duty w.e.f. 4.3.2002 till the date of the order. Therefore, he has been ordered to be removed from service. The petitioner through his wife filed an appeal before the State Commission. The appeal has also been dismissed, without giving any reason whatsoever. The petitioner thereafter approached the Government by serving a legal notice. However, the claim of the petitioner has again been rejected.
2. The respondents have filed a written statement. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner remained absent from duty from 5.11.1998 to 4.4.1999. He again remained absent from duty on 2.11.2001 and from 23.1.2002 to 14.2.2002 and on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner absented from duty from 4.3.2002 till the order was passed terminating his services. He was issued notices on 16.4.2002 and 21.6.2002 asking him to join duty. He continued to remain absent. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 8.8.2002 stating that action of imposing penalty under Sub Rule (IX) under Rule 4 of the (Punishment and Appeal Rules), 1987 would be taken against him unless he joins duty. All these warnings were ignored by the petitioner. Therefore, the action taken by the respondents is legal and justified.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. Mr. Malik has submitted that this is a case of blatant abuse of authority. Rules of natural justice have been flagrantly violated. The order of removal is based on misconduct, and therefore, could not be have been passed without holding a departmental equity against the petitioner. In any event, the order of dismissal has been passed by the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind who was not competent to pass the same as the President was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. He submits that even if under the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Group-D) Service Rules, 1998, the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is competent to pass the order of punishment, it would not legalise the order passed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner having been appointed by the Chairman of the State Commission, the authority subordinate thereto could not have passed the order of punishment, against the petitioner. In support, of this submission, the learned counsel has relied on a Single Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of S.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., 1983(3) S.L.R. 714 wherein it has been held as under:-
'21. Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, the words are that no civil servant shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed'. This refers to the past. This takes us back to the point of time when the civil servant was appointed....'
5. It is, however, not necessary for this point to be decided at this stage. In our opinion, the impugned orders (Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9) are liable to be quashed, on the short ground that they have been passed in flagrant violation of rules of natural justice. Absence from duty is recognised 'misconduct'. It is a settled proposition of law that no government servant can be dismissed from service, without complying with provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, in the present case no departmental equity was held against the petitioner. The petitioner was merely given notices for joining duty. Hence, there has been complete violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned order of removal is liable to be quashed. Since we have found the impugned order of punishment to be void-ab-initio, all the subsequent orders would also be rendered inconsequential. Even otherwise, we find that the order passed in appeal also suffers from vice of being a non-speaking order.
6. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9). The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, if so advised.
No costs.