V K SAYAL Vs. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This 'writ petition is preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing of the letter dated 2 8/08/2000 , whereby the respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement under the BHEL Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000. The petitioner in this writ petition has also prayed for quashing and/or setting aside the letters dated 1 2/05/2000, 1 7/06/2000 and 8/08/2000 issued by the respondents declaring that'the petitioner is in unauthorised absence with effect from 1/04/2000 and also for a further relief for a direction to the respondents to pay monthly salary and allowances to the petitioner with effect from 1/04/2000 onwards.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent No.1 oh 8/07/1975. On 2 5/06/1991, the petitioner was promoted from the post of Senior Manager to Deputy General Manager (Administration). A memorandum/articles of charges dated 2 5/10/1994 was issued to'the petitioner by the respondent No.2 along with the list of documents 'and list of witnesses attached therewith. An enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.l in respect of the charges drawn up in the aforesaid memorandum of charges and on conclusion of the inquiry,'an order was passed by the respondent No.2 on 3/03/1997 imposing major penalty of reduction in rank. Being aggrieved by the said order imposing major penalty of reduction in rank, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.P-No.1116/1997. An interim order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 3/03/1997. However, after hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. A Letters Patent Appeal was also filed by the petitioner as against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition being C.W,P.No.1116/1997. In the said appeal, the interim order earlier passed was vacated but, the appeal was admitted by this Court which is pending disposal. As against the order passed by the Division Bench vacating the interim order, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition which was also dismissed.

(3.) It also transpires from the records that the petitioner was also earlier absent from duty for about 10 months in the year 1995 which, however, was regularised subsequently by the respondents No.l and 2. The petitioner also remained absent from duty between the period from 2 1/01/2000 to 31/03/2000 which was regularised by sanctioning Half Pay Leave. However, with effect. from 1/04/2000, the petitioner again remained absent from duty and he applied for grant of leave on 2/04/2000. In the said application he stated that his leave might be extended up to 30th April, 2000. The petitioner, however, continued to remain absent from duties and accordingly the respondents No.1 and 2 issued three letters to the petitioner dated 1 2/05/2000, 17/06/2000 and 8/08/2000. In the letters dated 12/05/2000 and 17th June, .2000, the petitioner was informed that the leave applied by him had not been sanctioned by the competent authority and by the aforesaid communications, the petitioner was advised to report for duty immediately. A further communication was sent on 8/08/2000 by the respondents No.l and 2 to the petitioner in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 2/07/2000 regarding sanction of leave from 2/07/2000 to 31/08/2000, informing him that the competent authority had not sanctioned his leave. His attention was also invited to the two previous letters written by the said respondents to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the leave applied by him for from 1/04/2000 to 30/06/2000 had not been sanctioned by the competent authority and he was being treated as unauthorisedly absent with effect from 1/04/2000. The said respondents by the aforesaid letter further informed the petitioner that failing to report for duty even in spite of the same would render him for necessary action as deemed fit under leave Rules and CDA Rules of the Company which would be initiated against him.