SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. CHANDA SHARMA & ORS. Vs. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 14th January, 1985 whereby the respondent -Corporation has struck off the name of the petitioner from the rolls w.e.f. 25th July, 1984, and the order dated 15th October, 1990 (Annexure P/9) whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for reinstatement in service, has been rejected.

(2.) THE indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Grade III (Depot) at Mandir Hasaud, with the Food Corporation of India, in the year 1985. The petitioner left the office on 25th July, 1984 and thereafter joined the duties on 18th August, 1984 with an application for leave. According to the petitioner, the petitioner continued in his duty upto 15th October, 1984 and thereafter, he fell seriously ill with Typhoid and remained on leave upto 06th February, 1985. On the ground that the petitioner remained absent without prior permission of the authorities, a notice was published on 21st November, 1984 in the leading newspapers intimating the petitioner to join the service within a period of 15 days. Despite the publication of the said notice, the petitioner did not resume the duty within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 14th January, 1985 was passed striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the respondent -Corporation stating that the petitioner has abandoned the service of the respondent -Corporation on his own and as such, his name had been struck off from the rolls of the Corporation w.e.f. the dates indicated in column No. 4 i.e. 25th July, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a representation to the Senior Regional Manager on 12th February, 1985 (Annexure P/2) which was dismissed on 15th October, 1990 (Annexure P/9), which is also impugned herein.

(3.) SHRI Anil K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the notice was published in the newspapers at Bhopal and not at Raipur and as such, the petitioner was not aware of the notice published by the respondents. Further, his place of posting was wrongly shown as District Office, Kapa when he was actually posted at Storage, Mandir Hasaud. The petitioner was on medical leave upto 6th February, 1985 and as such, the petitioner could not have been treated as absent w.e.f. 25th July, 1984. Thus, the impugned order dated 14th January, 1985 is contrary to the provisions of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short 'the Regulations, 1971'), as no charge sheet was framed and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to put forward his case. Thus, the impugned termination order deserves to be quashed on the ground of violation of statutory provisions of Regulations, 1971 of the Food Corporation of India.