LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M)

Reserved on :11.08.2025

            Pronounced on: 04.09.2025

Dr. Amit Kumar  ..... Appellant

Vs

Director, Post Graduate Institution of Medical Education and Research and 

Others ..... Respondents

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present : Mr. Suresh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, 

for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Jhanjhi, Senior Advocate, assisted by 

Mr. Hakikat Grewal, Advocate, 

for the respondents. 

*****

ROHIT KAPOOR   

, J.    

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and

order dated 20.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, CWP-

19691-2020 filed by  the  appellant has been dismissed. The  appellant-

petitioner   in   the   said   writ   petition,   had   prayed   for   directions   to   the

respondent institute, i.e.  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Eduction and

Research (PGIMER), to allow him to join as junior resident, to continue and

complete his MD in the department of Internal Medicine, with a further

prayer  to  quash  letters  dated  27.08.2019  (Annnexure  P-9),   29.10.2019

(Annexure P-10), 14.02.2020 (Annexure P-11) and 02.11.2020 (Annexure P-

15), whereby, he has not been allowed to join and complete his course and

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -2-

instead a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- has been demanded. Prayer was also made

for grant of damages. 

I. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2.        The Appellant joined the respondent-institute, i.e., Post Graduate

Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh on

06.01.2018 as a junior resident in the department of Internal Medicine, in the

batch of January, 2018 - December, 2020. As per the appellant, his original

academic certificates were taken by the institute at the time of joining and

are still with it. It is the case of the Appellant that after undergoing the

course for about one year, he developed some medical problems and had to

undergo  treatment for the same, for which there was a brief absence and he

wrote to the respondent-institute for grant of leave from 02.01.2019 to

19.02.2019, alongwith medical certificates. After having recovered, he went

to the Institute in February, 2019 for resuming his services, however, he was

told  that he could join only after being declared fit by the Medical Board.

The Medical Board was constituted vide order dated 14.03.2019 and vide

letter dated 14.06.2019, he was informed that he has been found fit and was

asked  to  join  the Department by  19.06.2019.  As  the  marriage  of  the

appellant was scheduled to take place on 08.07.2019, accordingly, vide

email dated 19.06.2019 itself, he requested for extension of leave upto

19.07.2019, which was extended, vide letter dated 18.07.2019 (Annexure P-

6).

3. As per the Appellant, due to heavy floods in his native place at

Bihar,   he   could   not   join   the   respondent-institute   on   19.07.2019   and

accordingly,  he  informed  the   institute  vide  email  dated  19.07.2019  to

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -3-

consider the extension of his leave for five days with a request that he would

join on 24.07.2019 and in the event he failed to do so, it may start

proceedings against him, as per its rules. The request for grant of extension

of leave from 19.02.2019 to 23.07.2019, did not illicit any response. On

24.07.2019. when he went for joining the institute and handed over his

joining letter, although the institute kept the joining letter, but he was not

allowed to join, despite waiting for the whole day. It is claimed by the

appellant that despite repeated requests to every concerned official, he was

not permitted to join and rather  he was pressurized to resign. Owing to the

harassment, he became severely depressed and developed suicidal thoughts

and   it   was   under   such   circumstances,   he   unwillingly  submitted   his

resignation letter dated 31.07.2019 (Annexure P-8). 

4. From the documents available on record, it is clear that vide

letter dated 27.08.2019 (Annexure P-9), while referring to letter dated

31.07.2019 whereby resignation was submitted and request for waiver of

Bond Penalty was made by the Appellant, the respondent-institute informed

the   appellant   that   the   competent   authority   has   agreed   to   accept   his

resignation in principle as per rule. It was further stated that since he had

resigned after one year and within two years of his joining, as such, he is

liable to pay penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- as per rules. The appellant claims that

he received various letters calling upon him to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-, while

he was requesting the institute to allow him to join and complete his MD

course. It is the further claim of the appellant that from March, 2020

onwards, on account of lockdown due to Covid-19, he was forced to stay at

his hometown, i.e., Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. It is submitted that since his

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -4-

resignation has not been accepted, he again went to the institute and

requested for permitting him to join on 12.10.2020, however, he was orally

informed   that   he   cannot   be   permitted   to   do   so.   Further   instance   of

communication dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure P-13) showing Appellant’s

intention to complete the course and expressing how he was compelled to

resign, followed by issuance of legal notice dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure P-

14), is mentioned in the petition. As per the appellant, the respondent-

institute vide letter dated 02.11.2020 came out with a new fact, stating that

the acceptance of his resignation was already communicated vide letter

dated 27.08.2019 and the certificates which were lying with the institute,

would only be handed over to him on his depositing the penalty amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. The Appellant in his writ petition claimed that his resignation

had not been accepted and he had repeatedly been requesting to be permitted

to complete his course.  It is in this backdrop, the appellant approached the

writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the

reliefs as mentioned here-in-above. 

5. In the written statement filed by the respondent-institute, it was

inter alia  pointed out that the appellant, from the very beginning of the

course, has been on a perpetual leave and has more leaves to his account

than working days and was reported by almost all his seniors, where he was

on duty. It was stated in the reply that the appellant was a consistent

absentee, who took seven days leave vide letter dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure

R-6), in the month of January, 2018 and again sought a week's leave from

09.04.2018 to 15.04.2018 vide letter dated 04.04.2018, stating that he was

feeling depressed and was also heading to Western Railways Headquarters

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -5-

at Mumbai to get the extension of his leave for three years. The respondent-

institute extended all possible help and vide letters dated 06.04.2018 and

01.05.2018 suggested to his parents to talk to him directly and to encourage

him constantly. However, the attitude of the appellant remained callous and

he did not show up on duty and remained absent from 15.06.2018 without

prior permission, as is evident from letter dated 24.06.2018 (Annexure R-

10). Numerous complaints were made in the letter, pointing out specific

instances, showing a habit of skipping/shirking work, rude behaviour etc.

Thereafter, the appellant was contacted telephonically, to ask about his

whereabouts and in response, he informed that he desires to join the

railways. Subsequently, vide letter dated 27.06.2018, (Annexure R-11) he

again sought two days’ time to decide, whether he wants to continue in the

course or not.  He was counselled and yet again granted an opportunity to

decide.  

6. After joining back, once again complaints were received against

him vide letter dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure R-12) regarding not finishing

his duty and leaving the workplace without prior permission. An explanation

was sought through letter dated 21.08.2018. However, no response was

received. Subsequently, he again sought leave on 16/17.08.2018 and did not

report back. He telephonically informed that he was suffering from viral

fever and will return back at the end of the month. The appellant yet again

did not show up for duty on 01.09.2018 causing immense difficulty in

delivering necessary medical services to the public. He was asked to provide

proper medical certificate and intimate dates of leave, vide letter dated

13.09.2018 (Annexure R-17). The appellant remained on medical leave from

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -6-

19.08.2018   to   15.10.2018   and   remained   absent   from   16.10.2018   to

23.12.2018. He submitted his joining report w.e.f. 24.12.2018 and worked

till 31.12.2018 and yet again sought leave on 01.01.2019 due to medical

reasons, without mentioning dates/attaching medical certificates. He was

repeatedly asked vide letters dated 15.01.2019, 25.01.2019 and 06.02.2019

(Annexures R-18 to R-20) to provide medical certificates. However, no

response was received and it was under these circumstances, the head of

department, vide letter dated 16.02.2019 (Annexure R-21), requested the

authorities for constitution of medical board to examine the appellant, since

he remained on prolonged medical leave, besides remaining absent for a

very long duration. 

7. The appellant thereafter yet again rejoined duties for only one

day on 21.02.2019 and did not report back since 22.02.2019. He once again

submitted his resignation on 22.02.2019 (Annexure R-23) citing frequent

medical   illness   and   stress   and   sought   waiver   of   bond   amount.   On

28.02.2019, vide letter of even date, (Annexure R-24), he again stated that

he wishes to withdraw his resignation and sought permission to pursue his

course. 

8. The appellant yet again expressed his inability to continue vide letter

dated   01.03.2019   (AnnexureR-25)   and   immediately   left   the   city   after

submitting his application and joined the Indian Railways Service without

seeking any approval from the respondent-institute, (Annexure R-26). Upon

requests of the appellant, he was examined by the Medical Board on

14.06.2019 and was required to join the department by 19.06.2019, failing

which necessary action will be taken. The appellant vide his email dated

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -7-

19.06.2019, expressed his inability to join his duties by informing that his

marriage has been fixed for 08.07.2019 and again requested leave from

01.07.2019 to 18.07.2019. On 18.07.2019, while granting extension of leave,

from 19.06.2019 to 18.07.2019, it was brought to the notice of the appellant

that he had been granted too much leave and no further extension would be

granted as his services were needed for patient care in wider public interest.

He was directed to join strictly by 19.07.2019, failing which necessary

action will be initiated as per the undertaking signed by him at the time of

joining the course. However, by way of an email dated 19.07.2019, the

appellant   again   sought   extension   till   24.07.2019,   citing   ‘unforeseen

circumstances’. It was found that the appellant had taken more than 200

leaves and had only worked for two days, i.e. 01.01.2019 and 21.02.2019

and had not joined his duties thereafter. He had joined the Indian Railways

and was only making excuses to find out a way to avoid the payment of

penalty which he was legally bound to pay. The appellant again tendered a

resignation on 31.07.2019 with a request for waiver of the penalty amount,

which was accepted vide letter dated 27.08.2019 and he was asked to pay the

penalty amount, as per rules. 

9. Thereafter, letters were written to the appellant and his surety

for   payment   of   the   aforementioned   penalty   amount   of  Rs.5,00,000/-,

however, no action whatsoever was taken thereupon and it is only at a much

belated stage that the appellant yet again sought permission to rejoin the

course vide letter dated 12.10.2020, which, in-fact is a mala fide attempt to

revive a belated and time barred cause of action. 

10. No replication was filed by the Petitioner to controvert the

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -8-

factual averments made on behalf of the Respondents.

II. FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:

11. The learned Single Judge after considering the pleadings of the

parties and the arguments raised on their behalf, dismissed the petition filed

by the appellant, by passing a detailed and reasoned order.  The findings of

the learned Single Judge, in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the judgment dated

20.10.2023, are extracted as under:-

FPJ AEBTHDYGCE1UE .TEGU1HT0Y G TREUG8 YE21DCRE8CTGHCy indicate that the

petitioner had not completed his course. He claims that he had availed

leave for his marriage and thereafter, he could not join on time on account

of floods in his native place and thereafter, when he submitted his joining,

he was not permitted to join. Petitioner further claims that he was

depressed by the circumstances and accordingly, he tendered his

resignation. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the

HTYB1NRTN 0KNY I D TE.GREHTUTHHTRE 1E4GHI1DYEANNT,Dres, indicating that the

petitioner had availed of 206 leaves and also that the resignation tendered

by him has been accepted in principle. However, since the petitioner was

CTG4IN9E .TE81DHYTEOIR02G5fEG881HRIN9C5MEINE THOYE1f the prospectus and

the agreement executed by the petitioner with respoNRTN 0KNY I D TME.TE2GY

CIGLCTE 1EBG5EGNEGO1DN E1UEoYJrMuuMuuue0JE

15. The issue with regard to the payment of penalty amount in terms

of the agreement/prospectus and for that matter on the basis of a bond, is

no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Association of Medical Superspeciality Aspirants and Residents

and others v. Union of India and others (2019) 8 SCC 607, wherein it

has been held that all doctors who have executed compulsory bonds shall

be bound by the conditions contained therein. Relevant paras from the

'DR9OTN EGHTEGYEDNRTHEt0

"35. The submission of Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior

Counsel for the Appellants is that the conditions of the bond

per se amount to 'forced labour' and thus are violative of

Article 23 (1) of the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi expostulated

the said submission by referring to Article 23 (2) which

confers power on the State to impose compulsory service

for public purpose. Reliance was placed upon the

Constituent Assembly Debates by Mr. Dwivedi explaining

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -9-

the scope of compulsory employment for public purpose

under Article 23 (2) of the Constitution of India. The

Appellants who are required to work for a short period on a

decent stipend cannot complain that they are made to

perform 'forced labour', especially after the Appellants

have taken an informed decision to avail the benefits of

admission in government medical colleges and received

subsidized education. By no means, the service rendered by

the Appellants in Government hospitals would fall under

the expression of 'forced labour’.

39. The argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants

that compulsory bonds placed a restraint on their

profession and thus, would be contrary to section 27 of the

Indian Contract Act, 1872. The High Court of Calcutta

repelled this submission by holding that the compulsory

bond does not amount to any restraint on the professional

activity of the Appellants. The High Court observed that

the Appellants are offered the job of Medical Officer in the

State of West Bengal and that the covenant in the

compulsory bond operates only during the period of such

employment. Relying upon the dictum of Lord Morris in

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Harper's Garage (Stourport)

Ltd.,aoRtobha

"if A made a contract under which he willingly

agreed to serve B on reasonable terms for a few

years and to give his whole working time to B, it

would be surprising indeed, if it were sought to

describe the contract as being in restraint of trade;

in fact, such a contract would very likely be for the

advancement of trade."

The High Court concluded that a contract entered into by

Appellants to serve the government for a few years under

reasonable terms cannot be described as one in restraint of

trade. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by

the High Court of Calcutta. Therefore, we are of the

considered opinion that the conditions of compulsory bonds

fyiatM ArrAysaoyauyro2itMptocatsMarpucihgucvAtnAoUacourses

in government medical colleges are not in violation of

section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -10-

40. The upshot of the above discussion is that the Writ

Petitions and the Appeals deserve to be dismissed.

Consequently, all the Doctors who have executed

compulsory bonds shall be bound by the conditions

contained therein".

FnJ KN E 4IT2 E 1U E  .T E GU1HT0Y G TR E CT9GC E B1YI I1N E GNR E Glso

considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, even

if it is to be taken that the resignation tendered by the petitioner has not

been accepted, the fact remains that the petitioner did not complete his

course inasmuch as, he had availed more than 200 leaves. I also agree

with the submissions made by  Mr. Jhanji, learned senior counsel

representing the Institute that the course for which the petitioner was

GROI  TRME2GYEU1HE .TEiTYYI1NEXuF=0XuXuEGNREI EIYENot possible to make the

petitioner join at this stage to complete the said course. It also appears

that the petitioner is working with the Indian Railways and by way of

filing the instant writ petition, he is only seeking exemption from the

BG5OTN E1UEBTNGC 5EGO1DN E1UEoYJrMuuMuuue0JEWN8TE .e petitioner himself

has executed an agreement in terms of the prospectuYE2I .E .TEHTYB1NRTN 0

Institute that he will not resign his/her appointment without completing the

post graduate course to which he/she has been admitted by the Institute

and those who leave the said course after joining, shall be liable to pay a

penalty as per chart mentioned therein, accordingly the petitioner would

be bound by the same. In this case, since the petitioner had not completed

his course and took more than 200 leaves and further sought to leave the

course after one year and within two years, accordingly, the petitioner

21DCRELTECIGLCTE 1EBG5EoYJrMuuMuuue0E 1EHTYB1NRTN 0Institute, moreso when

the petitioner has not disputed the terms of the agreement/bond and its

applicability in any manner whatsoever. Moreso, it calls to reason that

such like course i.e. M.D. (Internal Medicine) or similar other courses are

vacancy based/seat based and the same is occupied (as by the petitioner in

this case) after going through entire process of admission for a specified

course. The withdrawal therefrom would entail blocking of the

source/vacancy on which a suitable candidate is to acquire qualification.

It is in these circumstances that such binding clauses are incorporated in

the Agreement/bond to secure the institution and the government

resources utilized therein as also to balance the interest of the candidate.”

III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

12. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -11-

argued that the decision of the learned Single Judge suffers from the vice of

non-application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

He   contends   that   the   absence   of   the   appellant   for   the   period   dated

02.01.2019 to 19.02.2019 was only on account of his suffering from viral

hepatitis, which was duly explained, and a medical certificate was provided

in support thereof. He has further argued that rather it was the respondent-

institute who did not allow him to join on 20.02.2019 and imposed the

condition of being declared fit by the Medical Board, which cannot be

blamed upon him. He has further sought to explain the absence of the

appellant and contends that the learned Single Judge had committed an error

in calculating the leave period of 206 days, which is factually incorrect. It is

vehemently argued that the Appellant has not been allowed to rejoin the

course only on account of absence of mere five days, which is arbitrary and

unwarranted, especially when timely intimation had been given vide email

dated 19.07.2019 (Annexure P-7). It is urged that on one hand, the Appellant

has been debarred from joining and continuing his M.D. course in internal

medicine and on the other hand, he is being asked to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-

lacs for leaving the course in between.

13. It is further contended that it was only on account of the harassment

meted out to the appellant that he submitted the letter dated 31.07.2019,

whereby,   it   is   explicitly   mentioned   that   the   act   and   conduct   of   the

respondent-institute had led to cause depression to the appellant, who even

contemplated committing suicide. 

14. It is lastly argued that the respondent-institute never accepted

the resignation of the appellant and cannot be allowed to take benefit of their

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -12-

own wrong and, thus, the relief as sought by the appellant in his petition was

required to be granted in accordance with the principles of natural justice

and the impugned letters denying the benefits  to the appellant were required

to be quashed being arbitrary and in violation of the Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. 

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments

of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6983-2021, decided on

22.11.2021, titled as ‘Prince Jaibir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors’,

‘  Dr. Rohit Kumar Vs. Secretary Office Of Lt. Governor Of Delhi and Ors’   

2021 (8) SCC 381 and ‘S.D.Manohara Vs. Konkan Raiway Corporation

Limited and ors’ 2024 SCC Online SC 2546, in furtherance of his

arguments.

16. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that the appellant has not approached this Court with

clean hands and has suppressed the material facts as regards his continuous

absence from the very start of the course. He has argued that the appellant

filed the writ petition as an afterthought only with the intent to get a waiver

from payment of the penalty amount, which he otherwise is liable to pay in

terms of the agreement bond, securities/contract clause. It is further argued

that the tenure of the course was from July, 2018 to June, 2021, when

PGIMER, Chandigrah was conducting the examination and counselling of

MD./MS courses, whereas, since January, 2021, the policy has been changed

and it is being conducted by  Institute of National Importance Combined

Entrance Test (INI CET) AIIMS, New Delhi and that there is no provision

for re-admission of the appellant into the MD (Internal Medicine course), at

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -13-

this belated stage.

17. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the appellant

had   executed   an   agreement   with   the   institute   to   serve   the   PGIMER,

Chandigarh for a period of three years, failing which, he was liable to pay

penalty amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. He has drawn the attention of the Court

to clause 4, 5 and 6 of the agreement to contend that in terms thereof, the

appellant was liable to deposit the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and could not

seek waiver, as wrongly sought by him. Learned Senior counsel has also

referred to the various letters issued by the Professor and Head, Department

of Internal Medicine to the Dean, PGIMER, Chandigarh to contend that the

appellant had joined the department on 06.01.2018 and till 21.02.2019, he

had already availed 206 leaves. It has also been pointed out that when it

came to the knowledge of the Head of the Department that the appellant

joined the Indian Railways Service, he was asked to clarify the said position

and to bring No Objection Certificate (NOC)/proper sanction leave to join

the department. It is submitted that since the very beginning, the appellant

had no intention to complete the course and it appears that he was already in

service with the Western Railways, as is apparent from the communication

dated   24.06.2018   (Annexure   R-10).   It   has   also   been  argued   that   the

Appellant slept over the matter and the petition filed by him suffered from

the vice of delay and laches. It is, therefore, contended by the learned Senior

Counsel that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, does not

suffer from any illegality or perversity and he prays for dismissal of the

present appeal. 

IV. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -14-

18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record, with their able assistance. 

19. The primary ground on which the appellant has assailed the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is that he has failed to consider

the facts of the case, in their correct perspective, in so much so that the

appellant was always ready and willing to perform his duties and apart from

his absence for a short period of time on account of medical infirmity and

his marriage, he could not be blamed for the time taken by the respondent-

institute to constitute a Medical Board. 

20. We have scrutinized and perused the averments of the parties

and the documents brought on record.  The undisputed factual position that

emanates therefrom, is that the Appellant had taken a considerably long

period of leave, starting from the year 2018 itself, which fact has been

suppressed and concealed in the writ petition. There is not even a whisper in

the entire writ petition about the leave/absence of the Appellant before

January, 2019 and to the contrary, it is repeatedly stated in the petition that

the Appellant-Petitioner developed some medical problem after undergoing

the course for about one year.   It is emphasized in paragraph 11 of the

petition that  “Even if presuming that the extension of leave of the petitioner

was only upto 19.07.2020 then for a mere five days delay due to heavy

floods in the native place of petitioner in Bihar, can the petioner be

debarred from continuing his MD course in Internal Medicine in which he

already has devoted 1 long year from January 2018 to December 2018.”

The learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to controvert the factual

position  as  borne  out  from   the   documents   appended   with  the  written

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -15-

statement showing his prolonged absence, starting from the year 2018 itself

and repeated submission and withdrawal of resignation letters.  On a pointed

query raised by this Court, regarding the employment of the appellant with

the   Indian   Railways,   the   learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the

appellant, has conceded to the said factual position. Thus, it is abundantly

clear that the appellant is guilty of suppression of material facts and in our

considered opinion, this ground itself disqualifies the appellant from seeking

any equitable relief under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. 

21. The plea taken by the respondent-institution that the appellant

was in fact never interested in pursuing his course and his repeated absence

and excuses regarding depression and suicidal thoughts were, a pretext to

somehow wriggle out of the binding penalty clause and seek a waiver

thereof, stands fully corroborated.  It is apparent that the Appellant sought to

sail in two boats. The matter is required to be examined from another angle.

The Appellant is a doctor and has a duty towards his patients and society at

large. His continued absence from his duties caused considerable damage to

wider public interest. He took away the chance of some other competent

candidate who could have joined the course and duly performed his duties.

In such view of the matter, he deserves no indulgence from this Court. 

22. We are, therefore, in agreement with the findings of the learned

Single Judge that the appellant would be bound by the conditions of the

compulsory bond and that he cannot be permitted to join the course in

question,   at   this   stage,   especially   in   view   of   the  peculiar   facts   and

circumstances of the case, where the repeated absence of the appellant from

LPA-1854-2023 (O&M) -16-

the very start of the course stands established and the factum of him being

employed with the Indian Railways is not disputed.

23. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by the appellant, would

not be applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case

wherein the appellant is guilty of prolonged absence and suppression of

material facts, as detailed here-in-above.

24. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the

decision passed by the learned Single Judge, vide its judgment and order

dated   20.10.2023,   and   resultantly   the   present   letters   patent   appeal   is

dismissed.

 (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) (ROHIT KAPOOR)

JUDGE  JUDGE

04.09.2025

smriti

Whether speaking/reasoned. :  Yes/No

Whether Reportable.  :  Yes/No