( 1 ) RULE D. B. Both the parties have filed their detailed pleadings and have also Filed some documents in support of their respective cases. A short point is involved and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are finally deciding this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer with respondent No. 1 (Engineers India Limited) since 14th December, 1983 and subsequently he was also promoted as Senior Engineer with effect from 1. 7. 1989.

( 3 ) WHILE working with respondent No. 1, the petitioner was appointed on deputation basis for a period of two years by State Trading Corporation of India (For Short STC) as Manager Electrical with effect from 13. 6. 1989. While working with STC he did not attend his duty with effect from 2. 7. 1990 and on 3. 8. 1990 he was relieved by that office and repatriated to his parent department, i. e" respondent No. 1. He did not join duty even there and was posted by respondent No. l at their office at Gandhar. As he did not report for duty, vide letter dated 24. 9. 1990 he was required by respondent No. l to join duty by 15. 10. 1990 and he was also required to tender his explanation for his unauthorised absence. It was also notified to him that if he failed to report for duty by that date his name would be struck off from their Rolls. No reply was received by respondent No. 1 from the petitioner and vide their letter dated 30. 11. 1990 he was informed that the name of the petitioner was struck off the rolls of respondent No. 1 as he was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned their service.

( 4 ) AFTER receipt of this letter of 30. 11. 1990, in reply dated 12. 12. 1990 the petitioner informed respondent No. l that he had not received any previous letters from them and that he was sick and had been advised to take rest and sought grant of further leave. In reply Vide letter dated 21. 12. 1990 he was informed by respondent No. 1 that his name had already been struck off the rolls of the company. The petitioner then made representation dated 9. 1. 1991 alleging that he was unable to attend the duty because of his illness inter alia staling that he had telephoned and sent a telegram and application to the STC where he was working for leave and therefore, he was not absent unauthorisedly. This representation was rejected on 8. 2. 1991. He made another representation dated 22. 1. 1992 to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of respondent No. 1 again reiterating that his absence was due to his illness and termination of his service was not legal and proper but without success and vide letter dated 17. 6. 1992 he was informed that respondent No. 1 had already communicated their decision.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has Filed the present petition dated 7. 8. 1992 alleging that he was not absent from duty unauthorisedly but was unable to attend his duty because of illness and intimation of which was sent by him telephonically to Shri J. C. Goel, Chief Marketing Manager of STC on 2. 7. 1990 followed by application sent on 2. 7. 1990 and a telegram was sent on 11. 7. 1990 to the Additional Director, STC for extension of leave on medical grounds and a medical certificate was also sent to him and was unable to attend to work till 25. 12. 1990 and remained under treatment and had been submitting applications for extension of leave last being 12. 12. 1990. After receipt of reply dated 21. 12. 1990 he came to know that his name had been struck off from the rolls and made representation dated 9. 1. 1991 which was rejected on 8. 2. 1991. Another representation dated 22. 1. 1992 was rejected on 17. 6. 1992. It is alleged that termination of his service was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, fair play as no opportunity to explain had been given to him and this action was against public interest/ public policy. It was also alleged that in fact the order is an order of termination of his service for misconduct which could not be done wit