MADHABANANDA JENA Vs. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who claims to be a member of the Schedule Tribe has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying, inter alia, to quash the order of his termination from service and to direct the Orissa State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') and its officers concerned in the matter to reinstate him in service with all consequential service benefits. The Orissa State Electricity Board, Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Jajpur Road, Executive Engineer, Jajpur Road, Electrical Division and Sectional Officer, Jajpur are arrayed as opposite parties in the writ application.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was enrolled as a Helper under of the Board on 8th December 1971 and was borne in the Nominal Muster Roll (N. M. R ). Since then he continued to serve the Board till 18th September 1977 when his service is alleged to have been terminated by the verbal order of the Sectional Officer (opp. party no. 4) without initiating any disciplinary proceeding. The pertitioner claims to be one of the seniormost Helpers in the organisation. The petitioner alleged that his termination from service was on the ground of his alleged involvement in the incident of theft of electric wire on 27th August 1977 which was the subject matter of G. R. Case No. 658 of 1977 in which he was an accused. The case ended in his acquittal by judgment of the trial court. It is the further case of the petitioner that during investigation of the above case, he was arrested on 9th September 1977 by the officer-in-charge of Jajpur Police Station. After being released on bail he joined his duty on 10th September 1977. On that day he was told that his name had been struck off from the roll and he could no longer work under the Board. Neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any order of termination was served on him. After his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner represented to the authority of the Board on 3rd October 1978 (Annexure-1) praying to be reinstated in service, but no heed was paid to his request. The petitioner filed another representation on 4th April 1979 for relief (Annexure-3), but to no avail. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Dist. Labour Officer for redress and the Asst Labour Officer took up a conciliation proceeding. The management was represented in the said proceeding wherein it was agreed on 11th July 1981 that the case of the petitioner will be finalised within one month as per the memorandum of settlementannexure-2. Despite the settlement, no action was taken by the Board to reinstate the petitioner in service. Thereafter he filed the writ application seeking the reliefs noticed earlier. The petitioner challenges the action of the opp. parties as illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) THE opp. parties in their counter affidavit to the writ application, while refuting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service alleged that the petitioner did not report for duty from 1st September 1977 and continued to be absent since then. In view of such absence he was deemed to have left his service voluntarily and therefore the question of his re-engagement in service did not arise. Referring to Rule 10 (C) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Orissa State Electricity Board, the opp. parties contended that if the workman remains absent beyond eight days' period, it shall be presumed that the workman has abandoned his job and left the service of the management on his own accord. According tame opp. parties, the petitioner joined service under the Board in December, 1972 and not in December, 1971 as alleged in the application.