ANAND KISHORE Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned orders, dated 14.12.1999, copy Annexure P- 15, and dated 14.6.2001, copy Annexure P-18, as illegal and void and seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Fireman with National Fertilizers Limited and he joined his duties in the year 1991. It was alleged that during the course of his service, the health of the petitioner deteriorated and he obtained medical treatment for the same. It was alleged that since the petitioner did not recover, he applied for medical leave for two weeks on 6.4.1999 and the leave was sanctioned upto 19.6.1999. It was alleged that the petitioner was under treatment in the hospital from 6.4.1999 to 1.9.1999 and that since there was no improvement, the petitioner started getting homoeopathic treatment from 6.10.1999 onwards. It was alleged that the petitioner had been informing respondent No. 2 to extend his medical leave, but vide Annexure P-11, the authorities declined his request for extending the leave, whereupon the petitioner submitted his reply, copy Annexure P12. It was alleged that vide letter dated 8.9.1999, the respondents informed the petitioner that he had not submitted medical certificate along with the application for extension of leave whereupon the petitioner submitted the reply dated 16.9.1999 along with the medical certificate. It was alleged that hereafter without holding any inquiry and without issuing any show-cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were terminated, vide letter dated 14.12.1999, copy Annexure P-15, by declaring him struck of the rolls of the company, on account of voluntarily abandonment from duty w.e.f. 14.12.1999. It was alleged that the petitioner filed mercy petition and representation but the respondents took no action, whereupon the petitioner filed CWP 3672 of 2001 for setting aside the impugned order, copy Annexure P16 and that the said writ petition was disposed of on 2.3.2001 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. It was alleged that in pursuance thereof, the respondents considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same vide Annexure P18. It was alleged that Rule 21(a) of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company was ultra vires to the Constitution of India. It was alleged that while terminating the services of the petitioner, the respondents had failed to follow the Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, framed by the respondent-Company and had terminated the services of the petitioner without any show-cause notice and without any opportunity of being heard.

(3.) In the written reply, filed by the respondents, it was alleged that the petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts from the Court. It was alleged that the petitioner had been absenting from duty intermittently for the last many years without taking proper sanction from the authorities on medical grounds and without furnishing medical certificates. It was alleged that the petitioner was repeatedly issued memos requiring him to join duty forthwith, failing which action shall be taken against him under the Rules. It was alleged that despite issuance of various memos, the petitioner failed to join the duties and remained absent continuously from March 1999 onwards till the date his name was struck of from the rolls of the Company. It was alleged that the writ petition also deserves to be dismissed being hit by the principles of estoppel. It was alleged that when the name of the petitioner was struck of from the rolls of the Company vide order dated 14.12.1999, the petitioner applied to the answering respondent and prayed that since his name has been struck of on account of voluntary abandonment of duty, his dues should be cleared forthwith and if any payment was recoverable from him, the same may be adjusted from his gratuity. A copy of the said letter was attached as Annexure R3. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner was asked to complete the formalities and as soon as the petitioner completed the formalities, the answering respondent settled the dues of the petitioner, and gratuity amount, etc. was released to him, clearing all his dues, except Provident Fund. It was alleged that the Provident Fund could not be released because the petitioner had not applied for the same. It was further alleged that since 1998 onwards, the petitioner remained on leave on medical grounds for most of the period and that the leave of the petitioner was not supported by medical certificate, issued by the National Fertilizers Limited Hospital, but still leave was sanctioned to him from time to time. It was alleged that since the petitioner used to manipulate the medical certificates, the answering respondents constituted a Medical Board comprising of the Doctors of the National Fertilizers Limited Hospital for examining the petitioner but the petitioner did not appear before the said Board for medical examination apparently for the reason of fear of being exposed. On merits, it was alleged that the medical certificates, submitted by the petitioner were only upto October 5, 1999 and for the subsequent period, the petitioner neither applied for leave nor submitted any medical certificate and, therefore, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Rules. It was alleged that immediately after the impugned order, striking of the name of the petitioner from the rolls, was passed, the petitioner submitted a medical certificate dated 17.12.1999, indicating that he was now fit to resume duty and that the said certificate was issued by a private Nursing Home. It was alleged that the Certified Standing Orders were perfectly legal and valid and are applicable to all the workmen. It was alleged that as per the Certified Standing Orders, if a workman remains absent without any permission for ten days, he will be treated to have voluntarily abandoned his duties and his name would be struck of from the rolls of the Company. It was alleged that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was issued various memos to join the duty, but the petitioner remained absent from duty and, therefore, the answering respondent was left with no other option except to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules.