There was an enquiry by the Deputy Secretary Development in May 1959.
The appellant submitted his explanation on March 11, 1959.
In June 1962 he instituted a second suit as pauper claiming a decree for about Rs.
8,689/ as arrears of his salary and allowances and also a further decree for Rs.
the said numberice on October 6, 1959.
The facts may number be briefly stated The appellant who was the plaintiff in the companyrt below was appointed as a Clerk in the Patiala State some time in July 1948.
278/12/ per mensem from 5.6.1962 to 4.7.1962 and Rs.
Both the matters were heard together in the.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 9th Au gust, 1966 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeals Nos.
Thus he was integrated in the new State of Punjab as a companyfirmed Assistant.
Meanwhile the appellant himself became seriously iII and prayed for leave from 1.11.1958 to 28.2.1959 0n the basis of a medical certificate granted by Dr. Inder Singh Sodhi,, Retired Civil Surgeon, Pepsu, Patia la.
The appellant also.
That your wilful absence from duty after the expiry of earned leave sanctioned to you upto the 31st October, 1958, is a misbehaviour.
sanction of the companypetent authority.
By a Notification of the Punjab Government No.
The State Government appealed to the High Court and the same was allowed on August 9, 1966 and both the suits were dismissed.
This, therefore, clearly shows that you are number actually ill but are malin gering, and have knowingly defied Government orders.
companytinued to be seriously ill and was unable to attend his duties.
He obtained extension of leave on account of illness of his mother, wife and daughter.
On the formation of the new State of Punjab on November 1, 1956, with the merger of the erstwhile Pepsu and Punjab States the appel lant was integrated in the service of the new State of Punjab as permanent Assistant in the grade of Rs.
290/ per mensem from 5.7.1962 upto the date of the decree.
The appellant submitted his representation to.
1299 of 1969 arises is the principal judg ment following which a short order was passed by the High Court dismissing the other suit of the appellant for arrears of salary.
Both the suits were decreed by the trial companyrt.
As already stated, two suits were filed by the appellant in 1962.
The following facts are relied upon by the appellant in order to sustain his submission.
150 10 300/ and was actually getting Rs./70/ per month on October 21, 1959, the date of his dismissal in the office of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
134 and 120 of 1963.
recovered he reported for duty at Simla on March 2, 1959 and he was permitted to resume his duty on furnishing.
The appellant instituted a suit in March 1962 challeng ing his order of dismissal dated October 21, 1959, as void and unconstitutional praying for a declaration that he companytinued to be in service of the Punjab State.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
On October 21, 1959, the Financial Commissioner Revenue passed the order of dis missal.
On January 27, 1959, the appellant was served with a chargesheet by the Financial Commissioner Development Punjab asking him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from Government service for his wilful absence from duty after the expiry of the earned leave sanctioned to him upto October 31, 1958, which was described as misbeha viour.
1299 of 1969 is companycerned with the appellants suit for declaration of his dismissal order dated October 21, 1959, as void and illegal.
1299 of 1969 in this judgment as the decision therein will govern the other appeal.
Before his integration in Punjab he was governed by the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1953 briefly the Pepsu Rules which were made in exercise of the powers companyferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
According to the plaint, the appellant, due to serious illness of his mother, proceeded from Simla where he was working to Patiala on casual leave on 8th July, 1958, with the.
The authorities declined to sanction the leave.
1298 of 1969 arises out of his suit for arrears of salary.
High Court and the judgment out of which Civil Appeal No.
The chargesheet, inter alia, stated 1 You deliberately deed the orders and again applied for extension of leave upto the 31st December, 1958 reigning yourself to be iII, and also threatened that in case leave was number allowed, you might be granted interview with the Revenue Minister X X X That on the one hand you have been applying for grant of extension of leave on account of your own illness and on the other, you have requested that you may be allowed to appear in B.A. Examination to be held in April, 1959.
1298 and 1299 of 1969.
It is admitted by the respondent that the appellant initially joined service in the State of Patiala in 1948 as a Clerk and he was companyfirmed as an Assistant in the Pepsu Civil Secretariat by an order dated October 31, 1956, of His Highness the Rajpramukh, which is the previous day of the appointed day under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Civil Appeal No.
The High Court granted certificates in both the appeals.
a certificate of fitness granted by the aforesaid Retired Civil Surgeon.
976GII 87/2499, dated February 9, 1957, these Pepsu Rules companytinue to apply as from 1st November, 1956, to the companyresponding services, posts and personnel of the new State of Punjab till further orders.
Civil Appeal No.
P. Sharma for Respondent.
H. Hingorani for the Appellant.
When he.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered GOSWAMI, J. These appeals are by certificate of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
He was served with a second show cause numberice on August 14, 1959, enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer.
