JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. These appeals arise from the very same judgment, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by the 'employer' and ordered reinstatement; however denying back-wages.

2. Writ Appeal No.368 of 2019 has been filed by the 'employee' being aggrieved by the denial of the back-wages and granting a further opportunity to the employer to conduct domestic enquiry, if they so desired, in respect of the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence; despite the fact that the employee was granted leave without wages for the period in question.

3. Writ Appeal No.112 of 2020 has been filed by the 'employer' challenging the reinstatement order passed by the learned Single Judge and in directing to conduct an enquiry; whereas, the misconduct was admitted by the employee and that the proceedings were completed in accordance with the relevant rules of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, Adarsh Seva Sharte Niyam, 1975 (for short, 'the Rule, 1975') where no separate enquiry is envisaged.

4. We heard Shri S.P. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the employee and Shri Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel representing the employer; besides Shri Sudeep Agrawal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

5. The sequence of events reveals that the employee by name Khirod Soni was engaged as a 'daily wage worker' by the employer (Raipur Development Authority) working as a 'Sweeper' from the year 1982 onwards. Later, as per order dated 11.08.1995 (where the employee has been shown at Sl.No. 14), the status of the employee was changed as a 'work charged and contingency paid employee' on a given scale of pay and he was continuing as above.

6. While so, Annexure P/2 show cause notice dated 26.05.2012 was issued by the employer, to the employee, referring to the unauthorized absence on the part of the employee and proposing action in terms of Rule 13(Seven), read with Rule 14(One)(Two)(Three) of the Rules, 1975. Written explanation, if any, was required to be submitted within 15 days. Alongwith the show cause notice, the statement of imputation and the factual statement as to the particulars of absence of the employee from the year 1995', till date, were given, showing that the employee was absent on 'leave without wages' for 706 days and that he was continuing on unauthorized absence from 21.03.2012 onwards.

7. Since no explanation was forth coming from the part of the employee, a reminder was sent on 20.06.2012 (Annexure R-1/1 in Writ Petition (S) No. 2075 of 2013) in response to which the employee submitted his version dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2 in Writ Petition (S) No. 2075 of 2013) produced alongwith the return filed by the 1st Respondent / State; virtually, admitting the factual position mentioned in the show cause notice and pleading for mercy. It was pointed out that he could not submit the reply on time because of family problems and due to health reasons and accordingly, an apology was made assuring that he would never let the cause to be repeated in the future. However, without any regard to the same, Annexure P/1 order dated 01.10.2012 came to be passed by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority; removing the Petitioner / Appellant from the service, making it clear that it was in 'anticipation of the approval' of the competent authority i.e. the Board of Directors.

8. Shocked and aggrieved by the proceedings, the employee submitted Annexure P/3 representation dated 29.10.2012 seeking to withdraw Annexure P/1 order and permit him to join duty, which however, came to be turned down as per communication dated 20.11.2012. This made the employee to challenge Annexure P/1 order dated 01.10.2012 and the subsequent order rejecting the representation by filing the writ petition seeking to have them set aside and to direct the employer to reinstate him with full wages and other consequential benefits.

9. Return was filed on behalf of the e