K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated the 26th of February, 1993.

( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed are: The petitioner was working with the second respondent from 3. 4. 1984 as Geophysicist. According to the petitioner, on the 6th of July, 1984 he was transferred to Delhi from Dehradun. In 1987, the petitioner was transferred again to Dehradun. While he was working in Dehradun, he developed Kidney trouble and he was REFERRED TO to All-India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. On the 22nd of April, 1987, he was transferred to Delhi on compassionate grounds. His wife was employed in Delhi Administration School. He wanted to continue in Delhi but he was transferred on the 7th of November, 1987 to Bombay. On the 24th of November, 1987, he requested for cancellation of his transfer. In 1988, he was transferred to Delhi. In 1990, the petitioner was transferred to the Bombay Unit of the second respondent. By letter dated the 2nd of April, 1990, he made a representation for his being retained in Delhi. His representation was not considered favourably. On the 9th of September, 1990, the elder brother of the petitioner died. His transfer was deferred up to the 31st of March, 1991. On the 11th of March, 1991, he again prayed for his being retained in Delhi.

( 3 ) ON the 27th of February, 1993, his request was rejected. The petitioner requested for grant of leave for two months from the 1. 4. 1991 to 30. 5. 1991 by his application dated the 6th of April, 1991. The petitioner again applied for leave by his application dated the 15th of June, 1991 for two months leave from 1. 6. 1997 to 31. 7. 1997. Again by application dated the 8th of August, 1991, he applied for two months leave from 1. 8. 91 to 30. 9. 1991. Again on the 12th of October, 1991, he applied for leave, without pay, from 1. 10. 1998 to 30. 11. 1991. Again on the 7th of December, 1991, he applied for leave, without pay, from 1. 12. 1991 to 15. 1. 1992. By application dated the 7th of April, 1992, he applied for leave, without pay, from 16. 1. 1992 to 31. 5. 1992. By application dated the 28th of May, 1992, he asked for leave, without pay, from 1. 6. 1992 to 31. 8. 1992. By application dated the 26th of August, 1992, he again applied for leave, without pay, from 1. 9. 1992 to 31. 11. 1992. The second respondent did not send any reply. A telegram was issued on the 28th of April, 1992 that the leave asked for by the petitioner cannot be granted and that he was remaining unauthorisedly absent from 21. 4. 1991. He was also asked to report for duty, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. On the 16th of July, 1992, the second respondent issued the following telegram:-

"refer OUR TELEGRAM DATED 28th APRIL 1992 (.) YOU ARE UNAUTHORISEDLY REMAINING ABSENT FROM DUTY AND NOT REPORTED FOR DUTY SO FAR (.) RESUME DUTIES FORTHWITH FAILING WHICH YOU WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED YOUR POST IN ONGC AND WILL CEASE TO BE IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE COMMISSION UNDER REGULATION 14 (5) OF ONGC LEAVE REGULATIONS 1968 WITHOUT ANY FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU (.)"

REGULATION 14 (5) REFERRED TO to therein reads as under:- "where an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the period of extraordinary leave if the leave granted to him is the maximum that can be granted under this regulation or where an employee who is granted a lesser amount of extraordinary leave than the maximum admissible under this regulation, remains absent from duty for any period which, together with extraordinary leave so granted exceeds the limit upto which he would have been granted leave under this regulation, he shall be deemed to have resigned his appointment and shall accordingly cease to be in the employment of the Commission, unless the Commission may determine otherwise, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case. "

( 4 ) ON the 21st of September, 1992, the second respondent wrote to the petitioner stating:-

"your request for cancellation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document