BALRAM SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Balram Sharma a cricketer and sportsman was employed in the sports quota, in the year 1985 with the respondent- Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). He claims to have won may laurels for ONGC in cricket matches and established his credentials as an outstanding sportsman.

(2.) Present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned Memorandum dated 8.11.2000, Annexure-1, holding petitioner as deemed to have resigned his appointment in ONGC w.e.f. 29.2.2000 (Afternoon). The memorandum records that petitioner had been relieved from ONGC's New Delhi Office on 30.11.99, with directions to report to Head (P&A), ONGC, NRBC, Jammu, after availing the usual joining time. It further records that he neither reported for duty nor applied for any leave and had been absenting from duties w.e.f. 1.12.1999. A show cause notice dated 29.7.2000, was issued to him to explain why he should not be considered as deemed to have resigned his appointment by invoking provisions of Rule 14(5) of ONGC Leave Rules read with Rule 14(2) and 14(4) of the said Rules. No explanation was received. But he requested for his retention at New Delhi which request was not acceded to.

(3.) Mr.Shyam Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned memorandum dated 8.11.2000, whereby the respondents have invoked Rule 14(5) and held it to be a case of deemed resignation. He submits that it was belatedly on 29.7.2000 that the respondents served a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why Rule 14 be not invoked and petitioner be not treated as having resigned with retrospective effect from 29.2.2000. Respondents themselves had given the benefit of adjustment of three months leave from 1.12.99 to 29.2.2000. He submits that petitioner had 208 days of earned leave/half pay leave to his credit. The said leave was liable to be adjusted for the period of absence and respondents could not have invoked Rule 14(5). He placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.T.C. Vs. Daya Nand 2003 (2) SLJ page 78 wherein, a similar provision had been struck down.