Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 611 (PNJ)

Jai Pal Thind v. Dpi

2003-04-29

V.M.JAIN, VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made in the petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join the duties and further direction to pay him the Pay and Allowances and other service benefits for the period from August 2002 till the date of filing of the petition. 2. The petitioner has averred that he was appointed as a Clerk with Kamla Nehru College for Women, Phagwara with effect from July 31, 1995. While working on the aforesaid post, he applied for leave because of medical reasons. Subsequently, he applied for extension of the leave for the period from September 3, 2002 to September 7, 2002 and again for the period from September 9, 2002 to September 14, 2002 and again upto September 28, 2002. When the petitioner was on leave, he received a show cause notice Jated August 20, 2002 from the College. In the aforesaid show cause notice, it was stated that during the period from July, 2000 to November, 2000 and for the period from July, 2001 to June, 2002, the petitioner had not deposited the entire amount collected by him from the computer courses run by the College. The petitioner has stated that he replied to the aforesaid show cause notice. The petitioner has further stated that after availing the leave upto September 28, 2002, he approached the College and wanted to resume his duties. However, he was not allowed to do so by the respondents. The claim made by the petitioner is that he is continuously approaching the College authorities to allow him to re-join the duties. The petitioner has further claimed that in fact he apprehended arrest in a criminal case which may be lodged by the College authorities and, therefore, he filed application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated October 19, 2002 noticed the statement by the police that no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and, therefore, issued directions that in case he was required to be arrested, then 3 days advance notice be given. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala vide order dated October 19, 2002 noticed the statement by the police that no criminal case was pending against the petitioner and, therefore, issued directions that in case he was required to be arrested, then 3 days advance notice be given. 3. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition claiming that he was not being allowed to resume his duties and has also claimed the pay etc. as noticed above. 4. Upon notice of the writ petition, the respondents have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. The claim made by the petitioner has been contested. In written statement, the respondents have maintained that the petitioner has embezzled a huge amount belonging to the College, With regard to the allegation that the petitioner was not being allowed to re-join the duty after availing the medical leave, the respondents have maintained that they have been kept on contacting the petitioner without fail and asking him to come and join the duty and also face the enquiry and investigation but the petitioner had intentionally not joined the duties. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In view of the specific stand adopted by the respondents in the written statement that they had been repeatedly asking the petitioner to resume his duties and also join the enquiry and the investigation, but it was the petitioner who had chosen not to re-join his duties, we find that the disputed question of facts are involved in the present case. The aforesaid disputed questions cannot be determined in the present proceedings under Article 226, of the Constitution of India. 7. In these circumstances, we dismiss the present petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek his remedies, if so advised, in an appropriate forum including, the Civil Court. 8. Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.