RAJENDRAKUMAR RANJIT SINGH CHAUDHARI Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court through this petition challenging the order dated May 25, 1993 whereby the respondent-Management informed the petitioner that in pursuance of Clause 12. 4 (iv) of Chapter XII of Common Code Cadre, the petitioner has deemed to have left the services of the company on his own accord with effect from the date he was due to return to work. The clear meaning of this letter is that according to the respondent-Management the petitioner has abandoned the services and since then he was no more in the service of the respondent-Management.

(2.) THE relevant facts in nut shell and that too just for the decision of the present petition are as under:--- The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer with the respondent No. 1 Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the Company for the sake of brevity as the Western Coalfields Limited is already registered under the Companies Act ). By passage of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer and from Nagpur he was transferred to Pench Valley area of the respondent-company. Petitioner did not join at Pench Valley area and according to him it was because of certain unforeseen circumstances. According to him he availed leave by making necessary applications. No doubt it has come on the record that initially petitioner avoided to join at Pench Valley area and also tried to exhaust some legal remedies. Having been totally unsuccessful in those attempts, ultimately he joined on June 19, 1992. After having joined at Pench Valley area, petitioner again availed leave, that was earned leave. He proceeded on leave from 21-6-1992 to 15-7-1992, he again went on leave from 26-7-1992 till 17-8-1992. He again appeared to have joined the duties and proceeded on leave from 22-8-1992 to 28-8-1992. It appears that he immediately thereafter got extended the leave from 28-8-1992 to 14-9-1992 and again after joining, proceeded on leave from 18-9-1992 to 28-9-1992. It is clear from the record that after having availed of the abovesaid leave, no doubt for a considerable long time surprisingly he again sought for extension of leave by his letter dated September 30, 1992. However, this was refused by the respondent-company and he was specifically informed that no further leave would be granted to him and that he should join duties immediately. However, petitioner failed to join the duties and just went on sending his leave applications one after another. All these leave applications were rejected by the respondent-company. However, petitioner did not take any cognizance of such rejection and even did not join in pursuance of the directions given by the respondent-company to the petitioner to join his duties immediately. It is also clear from the record that the respondent-company by its letter dated December 23, 1992, brought it to the notice of the petitioner that the conduct of the petitioner was definitely offending and further he was informed about the provisions of para 12. 4 (iv) of Chapter XII of the Common Code Cadre as well as Rule 5. 7 Chapter II of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. Appropriate it is at this stage to mention that the provisions of the Common Coal Cadre and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 framed by the company are applicable in the present case and there is no dispute about the same, though the validity of Clause 12. 4 (iv) of Chapter XII of the Common Coal Cadre is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) IN spite of having informed to comply with the directions given by the respondent-company to join the services, since the petitioner did not report on duty and also again pushed in the applications on medical grounds for leave, the respondent-company was ultimately compelled to issue a letter dated May 25, 1993 informing the petitioner that since he failed to report on duty within 8 days of the receipt of the office letter No. WCL/per/ee/578 dated 11-3-1993 which was the letter given by the respondent-company to the petitioner to join, the petitioner could be said to have made himself liable for action under Para 12. 4 (iv) of Chapter XII of the Common Coal Cadre. In pursuance of that Clause, the company declared by this letter that petitioner lost his lien on his appointment and deemed to have left the services of the company of his own with effect from the date he was due to return to work. He was also informed that thereafter he would not be allowed to resume duty. He was also made aware of his right that in accordance with the provisions of the Common Code Cadre, he had a right to make a representation in that matter to the Management explaining the reasons of his absence and the Management reserved its right to accept or not to accept the explanation if given by him. It is this letter which injured the petitioner and prompted him to approach this Court for the necessary reliefs. Petitioner has sought for quashing of this letter and also for declaration that Clause 12. 4 (iv) of Chapter XII of the Common Code Cadre be declared as unconstitutional.