ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE.

(2.) With the consent of the parties matter has been heard and disposed of by this order.

(3.) Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer with the respondent when he applied for two years extra-ordinary leave for higher studies abroad. Respondent considered the request of the petitioner favourably and granted extra-ordinary leave for two years for studies w.e.f. 15th July, 1994. Petitioner, after the expiry of the period of two years, did not return to India and instead wrote a letter dated 20th June, 1994 from California, USA with a request to sanction extra-ordinary leave for a further period of two years. The respondent duly considered the request of the petitioner and allowed further extra-ordinary leave for period of two years w.e.f. 15th July, 1996 to complete studies of M.S. in Electrical Engineering from West Coast University, Los Angeles, USA. A request dated 25th June, 1998 was again received from the petitioner for extension of extra-ordinary leave by three years. Respondents duly considered this request but did not grant leave as in the meanwhile, the petitioner was charge-sheeted in a vigilance case vide Memorandum dated 13.2.1998, which was duly served upon the petitioner at his last known address in the USA. Since the petitioner did not return despite his leave having not been sanctioned, the respondent on 17.3.1999 issued a memorandum to the petitioner proposing action against him under Regulation 7 of the Regulations for his wilful unauthorised absence w.e.f. 15th July, 1998. According to the respondents by wilfully absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly the petitioner had committed gross misconduct and had rendered himself liable for initiation of departmental and disciplinary action against him. The petitioner was duly served with the memorandum dated 17th March, 1999 but he did not chose to file reply to the same nor returned back for duty. By invoking Regulation 10 of the Regulations, respondent dispensed with the holding of the departmental enquiry and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be dispensed with. On receiving no reply, the respondent imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. This petition has now been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the dismissal and also for a direction to be given to the respondents to grant to the petitioner all retiral benefits.