ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a diploma holder in textile after completing one month's production training in U. P. Handloom Corporation Ltd. was appointed on probation as production inspector for one year on 22.8.83. He joined on 25.8.83 at Salon, district Raf-Bareilly. He was transferred by the managing director from Rai-Bareilly to Rishikesh. He was relieved by the project officer on 5.1.89. According to respondents, the petitioner got his transfer stayed. On 24/25.1.89 the petitioner was directed to report at Naogaon, Uttar Kashi. The petitioner sent applications for leave on 6.1.89, 11.3.89, 11.5.89, 12.7.89 and 14.8.89. He claims that he was patient of esonophilia which was cured to targe extent in 1982 but the hills were not suitable for his health. The respondents dispute the receipt of applications for leave. It is also claimed that the petitioner was directed to get himself examined by the Chief Medical Officer but he did not comply. The respondents informed the petitioner on 10.7.89 to join the duty. But the petitioner instead of joining sent the application for leave. Since the petitioner did not join, the respondent published a notice in newspaper, 'Swatantra Bharat' dated 18.8.89 asking the petitioner to join his duty as his leave cannot be sanctioned. It was stated that if the petitioner did not join his duty within three days. It would be treated that he was not interested in working in the corporation and he would be dismissed from service without any notice. According to petitioner, he had grown very weak, therefore, he could not Join and when he went to join in November 1989 he was informed that since he did not join, the General Manager of the Corporation passed an order dated 7.11.89 that the petitioner had abandoned his service w.e.f. 6.1.1989. The order dated 7.11.1989 was challenged by the petitioner by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1677 of 1992 which was dismissed on 3.1.1992. The order was challenged by way of Special Appeal. It was disposed off by this Court on 23.3.1992 with a direction to the petitioner to make representation and the respondent to decide within a fortnight after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Managing Director by its order dated 22.5.1992 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The order does not disclose any reason.

(2.) On the arguments advanced by Sri L. K. Dwivedi. the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Birla the learned counsel for the respondent, the questions that arise for consideration are whether the absence of the petitioner, on the facts of the case, could be treated as abandonment, whether the respondent could dispense with the services of the petitioner without any opportunity of hearing, whether the general manager who was a delegate of managing director could pass the impugned order, whether Rule 63A was arbitrary and invalid being contrary to public policy.

(3.) The service conditions of employees of corporation are governed by Uttar Pradesh State Hand loom Corporation Limited (Officers and Staff) Service Rules, 1981 (in brief Rules) framed by the board of directors of the corporation in exercise of power conferred on it by clause (ix) of Article 127 of the Article of Association. Chapter VIII of the Rules deals with superannuation, retirement and quittal of service. Rule 63A added to this chapter deals with automatic termination of lien. It is extracted below : "If any employee remains absent from his duty without any information or prior approval for his absence or over-stays after expiry of the leave period originally sanctioned or subsequently extended, thereby in time, he will lose lien on his appointment if he does not report for work within 15 days from the date of the beginning of such unauthorised absence. However, lien may be restored at any time subject to discretion of the management after submission of satisfactory explanation to the management by the employee concerned."