Dhian Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh And Others

M.S Liberhan, J.:— This appeal arises out of the decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order of termination of his services was void.

2. Briefly the facts enunciated are:

The appellant was working as confirmed Assistant Lineman since May 1, 1971. He went on leave from January 15, 1982 to April 1, 1982. Thereafter, he never reported for duty. The appellant was removed from service on March 9, 1983. He challenged the order dated March 9, 1983, in the suit for declaration to the effect that the order was void on the ground that no enquiry was held, no show cause notice was served and no opportunity of hearing was given to him before dispensing with his services. It was further claimed that the Superintending Engineer could not terminate his services and proper procedure for the termination was not followed.

3. The respondents controverted the facts. It was averred that a number of notices were sent to the appellant through registered post. Even the show cause notice alongwith the charge sheet and statement of allegations was sent through registered post. The appellant was again and again asked to report for duty failing which his services would be terminated without any further notice. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court found that due opportunity of hearing was given.

4. The only contention raised before me is that before the removal of the appellant from service, no notice to show cause was served on him and no opportunity of hearing was afforded; thus the order of removal is against the principles of natural justice.

5. The counsel for the appellant relied on Jai Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 492, T. Raj Mallaiah v. The District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar, 1975 (2) S.L.R 817, Chetan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1977 (1) S.L.R 504 and Sohan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1985 (2) S.L.R 96.

6. The principle which emerges from the law laid down by the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant is that before removing a person from his service for remaining absent from duty without sufficient cause, an opportunity of hearing should be granted to the delinquent. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down by the said judgments.

7. I have been taken through the evidence, oral as as documentary. The inference which has been arrived at by the Courts below is that the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause or to explain his absence from duty. He was asked again and again to join his duty through numerous notices including a notice through newspaper. The appellant refused to receive the registered covers acknowledgement due or to comply with the notice served on him through newspaper. Admittedly, no explanation for remaining absent from duty was submitted to the respondents nor any was given in the suit or while appearing as a witness on oath in the Court. An half-hearted attempt was made by the appellant to state on oath while appearing as a witness that a telegram for extension of leave was given though no period for extension was specified nor any reason for the same was given. No receipt with respect to the telegram was produced nor its receipt by the respondents proved by any evidence whatsoever on the record. No particulars of telegram were given at any point of time during the trial. It was not disputed by the appellant that the only address available with the department was of his village at which all the registered notices were addressed to him. It was reported in Exhibit D-9 that the appellant had gone to foreign country.

8. In view of my above observations I affirm the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below that due opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, which he failed to avail. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Sahoodul Haque v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, 1974 (2) S.L.R 547 that:—

“Even if the appellant was being punished, so that Article 311 could apply, he had been, in the circumstances of the case, given sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct. He had failed to avail of that opportunity. It could not, therefore, be said that the requirements of natural justice or of Article 311 of the Constitution had been contravened. In any case, on the facts before us, we think that it will be useless to afford any further opportunity to the appellant to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The undenied and undeniable fact that the appellant had actually abandoned his post of duty for an exceedingly long period, without sufficient grounds for his absence, is so glaring that giving him further opportunity to disprove what he practically admits could serve no useful purpose. It could not benefit him or make any difference to the order which could be and has been passed against him. It would only prolong his agony.”

9. The judgment cited squarely covered the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the contentions raised. Findings of fact arrived at after due consideration of evidence that show cause notice to explain absence was issued at his address available with the department as well as numerous opportunities were given to him to join, were neither seriously challenged nor any error in the said findings had been pointed out. I, therefore, affirm the same.

10. For the reasons stated above, I find no force in this appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

11. Appeal dismissed.