GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the orders issued by first respondent in Memo No. SE (O) Estt/c1 478/86, dated 11-6-1986 and by the second respondent in Memo No. CEE/ HZ/p2/misc. /d. No. 108/90, dated 7-5-1990. The first respondent vide Memo dated 11-6-1986 ordered that the petitioner is deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 17-9-1983 and he is no more in the Board Service as he absented himself unauthorisedly for more than one year. On appeal by the petitioner, the second respondent vide Memo dated 7-5-1990 confirmed the said order of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and he applied for leave from 20-5-1983 to 16-9-1983 vide his application dated 18-5-1983, which was sanctioned vide Memo dated 23-9-1983 and the petitioner was informed that he was having 88 days half pay leave after the sanctioned leave. Subsequently, the petitioner suffered health problems and therefore he could not rejoin duty till 30-6-1987. The first respondent through Memo dated 19-8-1987 informed the petitioner that he is deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 17-9-1983. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before second respondent and the appeal was rejected on the ground that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner and he was deemed to have been resigned from service on account of continuous unauthorised absence exceeding one year under Regulation 28 (3) of the APSEB Service Regulations.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in WP No. 282 of 1987, dated 1-9-1989 wherein the learned single Judge interpreted Regulation 28 (3) and dealt comprehensively with various aspects in the light of various decisions of Supreme Court and other High Courts.

( 4 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the respondent-Board contended that there was no plea raised with regard to applicability of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and it cannot be raised for the first time in the writ petition. Secondly, he contended that the Board need not conduct an enquiry, since the Board had published a notice and further the petitioner received it and therefore holding of enquiry against the petitioner does not arises. Thus, the principles of natural justice do not attract inasmuch the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and he failed to avail the same and therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the vires of Regulation 28 (3) of the Service Regulations. Learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to the judgment of the apex Court in Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association, 2000 (1) LLJ 237, wherein an employee resigned from service and the same was accepted and subsequently the employee withdrew his resignation and requested the Bank to continue him in service. Since there was Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement and there was evidence of refusal to accept notice, it was held as not necessary for the bank to hold an enquiry. The facts of that case are completely different and do not apply to this case. Learned Standing Counsel also cited a decision in B. V. Murthy v. Regional Manager, APSRTC, 2001 (1) ALT 455 and contends that the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court for the relief. This contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as this writ petition was admitted on 2/07/1990 and in view of the pendency of the writ petition and at this length of time, it is not proper to direct the petitioner to approach the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute.

( 5 ) SIMILAR controversy as in this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court in WP No. 282 of 1987 to the effect that the petitioner therein shall be deemed to have been resigned from service and shall automatically cease to be the Board employee by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document