IMPORTANT POINT
Termination upheld as lawful due to prolonged unauthorized absence and failure to substantiate claims of illness, despite claims of procedural violations.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages as the petitioner is not committed mistake and his termination is absolutely illegal and unsustainable.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to submit all the records of the petitioner related with his service career.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to investigate the matter of the petitioner in appropriate agency or authority regarding filing of his certificates well within time and also the non- consideration of those applications and documents by the respondents-authorities.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or likewise any other appropriate writ, commanding and directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for joining of the services with immediate effect, so that the respondents may not be permitted to say that for no work the petitioner is not entitled for payment, especially in the circumstances when the petitioner is terminated without following the basic principles of natural justice and provision of the Act, 1968 and Rule, 1969.

10.5 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). In the year 1994 the petitioner took 9 days leave and in between he informed to the Department that due to physical ailment he was unable to resume the services, but the same was not accepted and telegram was also sent to the petitioner at his village address, which was not received by the petitioner, as he was in some other place, thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 06.06.1994, which was replied by the petitioner, thereafter departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 25.02.1996 vide Annexure-P/35, against which the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 5098/1998 and vide order dated 13/09/2013, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file revision petition before the appropriate authority, thereafter the petitioner moved the revision petition before the competent authority (the respondent No. 4), which has been dismissed, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P/1 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The action of the respondents is curt, callous, illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law. The Department has not appreciated the fact that the ailment of the petitioner was duly proved by him and Department has followed the provision of the Act,1968 and Rules, 1969, which says that the employee may communicate the Department regarding any exigency/urgency and the suitable documents may be filed after joining of the services, unfortunately in case of the petitioner, no such procedure is followed and petitioner was never sought to file the certificates and contrary to that he was outrightly directed by the authority to join the services forthwith. The order Annexure P/1 is passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is the basic rule of the law and