JUDGMENT

Venkataswami. J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The appellant-Corporation on January 5, 1989 passed an order invoking Rule 23 (vi)E of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules thereinafter called "the Rules"). That order was to the effect that the first respondent herein must be deemed to have lost his lien on his appointment with the Corporation/Mill.

3. The first respondent has successfully challenged the said order of the appellant before the High Court of Guwahati and thus, the appellant is before us.

4. The first respondent entered the services of the appellant as a Fire Fighting Officer and was eventually promoted on 28.8.1985 as Assistant Manager (Security & Fire-fighting). On May 26, 1988 the body of one Shanti Rani Chakrabarty, sister-in-law of the first respondent, was found in the house of the first respondent. On 27.5.1988, the first respondent applied for causal leave. On the next day, an FIR lodged against the first respondent and others under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC by Karim Ganj Police. On 3.6.1988, the first respondent after the expiry of casual leave sent an application for Earned Leave for 11 days giving the reason personal affair and mentioning his leave address as U/S PWD Dispur, Gauhati, On 6.6.1988 the Senior Manager of the appellant received a message from the Police of direct the first respondent to report to the police station. On 7.6.1988 the Senior Manager informed the police that the first respondent has sent an application for Earned Leave. Again the police requested to intimate the whereabouts of the first respondent. On 14.6.1988 the appellant informed the police that the whereabouts of the first respondent were not known. However, the permanent address of the first respondent, as available in the official record, was supplied to the police. Thereafter, the appellant sent series of leave applications dated 21.6.88, 14.7.88, 13.8.88, 28.8.88, 13.9.88, 29.9.88, 16.10.88 and 5.11.88 without minding to find out whether previous applications for leave have been sanctioned or not. These leave applications initially did not disclose any reason and subsequently it mentioned on medical ground without enclosing any medical certificate and without disclosing his leave address. The appellant-Corporation again received on 28.11.1988 a communication from the police that the first respondent was wanted as an accused in a murder case. In view of that, the appellant-Corporation by a communication dated 30.11.1988 informed the first respondent that his leave on medical grounds was not sanctioned as his applications were not supported by medical certificates and that he was liable to be treated as an unauthorised absentees. He was, therefore, called upon to submit his explanation, if any, within 15 days of receipt of the letter. He was also incidentally informed that he was required by the Superintendent of Police. Karim Ganj in connection with the murder. In response to the above communication from the appellant-Corporation, the first respondent submitted his reply baldly stating that he was suffering from chest pain for quite some time and that he had consulted specialist outside HPC for personal reasons and due medical certificate will be produced at the time of joining. He also informed the Corporation that he knew that he was required to appear before the police and that he would report to the police as per rules. It is under these circumstances that the appellant-Corporation passed the order dated 5.1.1989 invoking Rule 23(vi)E the Rules.

5. The appellant aggrieved by the said order moved the Guwahati High Court by filing Civil Rule No. 288 of 1992 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, on appeal by the appellant-Corporation, agreeing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the first respondent set aside the order of the appellant-Corporation dated 5.1.1