Whether Reporters of Local Papers May Be Allowed to See the Vs. Ram Kanwar .....Petitioner - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1056207
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-02-2013
AppellantWhether Reporters of Local Papers May Be Allowed to See the
RespondentRam Kanwar .....Petitioner
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.9350 of 2013 date of decision : may 02, 2013 ram kanwar .....petitioner versus union of india and others .....respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice surya kant. hon'ble mr.justice r.p.nagrath. present : mr.k.k.gupta, advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. --- surya kant, j. (oral) the petitioner impugns the order dated 18.11.2008 (annexure p-3) passed by the central administrative tribunal, chandigarh bench, chandigarh, whereby his original application seeking regularization of the period of unauthorized absence as 'leave of the kind due', has been dismissed. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. in our considered view, the writ petition must fail on two counts. firstly, the impugned order was passed by the tribunal in november, 2008 whereas the writ petition has been filed in may, 2013. there is inordinate delay of more than 4½ years in filing the writ petition. merely because the petitioner retired from service is no sufficient ground to entertain the petition after such an inordinate delay and latches. cwp no.9350 of 2013 [2].that apart, the petitioner's plea that he should be taken as exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, hence, the absence period deserves to be regularized by treating it leave of the kind due, cannot be accepted for the reason that in the disciplinary proceedings, he was not exonerated. the enquiry officer and the appellate authority though found that the petitioner ought not to have been transferred from the post of u.d.c.to ex-cadre post of store keeper but they have also firmly held that as a part of service discipline the petitioner was required to join the duty and then could agitate the matter. the leniency shown by the authorities is only to the extent that the punishment initially awarded to the petitioner has been reduced. in these circumstances, when the petitioner was found guilty of departmental misconduct and proportionally awarded punishment, the orders passed by the competent authority to treat the period of absence from duty as 'dies non' calls for no interference. if there is any period left out which is yet to be regularized in accordance with rules, the petitioner may approach the competent authority. with liberty and observations aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed. $ (surya kant) judge $ may 02, 2013 (r.p.nagrath) mohinder judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9350 of 2013 Date of Decision : May 02, 2013 Ram Kanwar .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

Present : Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

-.- 1.

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

--- Surya Kant, J.

(Oral) The petitioner impugns the order dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, whereby his Original Application seeking regularization of the period of unauthorized absence as 'leave of the kind due', has been dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order.

In our considered view, the writ petition must fail on two counts.

Firstly, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal in November, 2008 whereas the writ petition has been filed in May, 2013.

There is inordinate delay of more than 4½ years in filing the writ petition.

Merely because the petitioner retired from service is no sufficient ground to entertain the petition after such an inordinate delay and latches.

CWP No.9350 of 2013 [2].That apart, the petitioner's plea that he should be taken as exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, hence, the absence period deserves to be regularized by treating it leave of the kind due, cannot be accepted for the reason that in the disciplinary proceedings, he was not exonerated.

The Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority though found that the petitioner ought not to have been transferred from the post of U.D.C.to ex-cadre post of Store Keeper but they have also firmly held that as a part of service discipline the petitioner was required to join the duty and then could agitate the matter.

The leniency shown by the authorities is only to the extent that the punishment initially awarded to the petitioner has been reduced.

In these circumstances, when the petitioner was found guilty of departmental misconduct and proportionally awarded punishment, the orders passed by the Competent Authority to treat the period of absence from duty as 'dies non' calls for no interference.

If there is any period left out which is yet to be regularized in accordance with rules, the petitioner may approach the Competent Authority.

With liberty and observations aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed.

$ (SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ May 02, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE