MEENA Vs. T.R. PATIL VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common issues arise in both these writ petitions, they being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether discontinuation of services of an employee on the ground that he has deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his services as per Rule 16(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Service (Conditions of service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the Rules of 1981) should be preceded by an enquiry as contemplated under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981.

(3.) SHRI S.V. Sohoni, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal was contrary to law. It was submitted that the petitioners who were permanent employees had been terminated from service without holding any enquiry whatsoever. Relying upon the provisions of Rule 16(3) of the Rules of 1981, it was urged that if a permanent employee without sufficient cause fails to apply for leave within seven days from the date of absence, it is treated as breach of discipline making him liable for suitable disciplinary action after due enquiry. Hence, when a permanent employee is absent from duty without leave continuously for the period exceeding three years, it is deemed that he has voluntarily abandoned his services. However, if it could be shown that there was sufficient cause for such absence, the same could not result in termination of his services. He, therefore, submitted that availability of sufficient cause could be proved in an enquiry held in accordance with the Rules of 1981. He urged that Rule 16(3) of the Rules, 1981 were required to be read harmoniously thereby contemplating holding of an enquiry before doing away with the services of a permanent employee on the ground that he had voluntarily abandoned the services. According to the learned Counsel, as the impugned action had been taken without being preceded by an enquiry, the same was not in accordance with law and in that regard he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., : (1993)3 Supreme Court Cases 259. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment having failed to consider said position was contrary to law.