The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of unauthorized absence for a continuous period and the necessity of a disciplinary inquiry before termination.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. By the present petition the Petitioner challenges the award dated 19November, 2007 whereby the learned Tribunal held that the termination of the Respondent without holding an enquiry is neither legal nor justified and thus directed reinstatement of the Respondent without back wages and granted liberty to the Petitioner to conduct an inquiry regarding the unauthorized absence of the Respondent and take appropriate action thereon.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent unauthorizedly absented himself and in a case of abandonment, if show cause notice is given, no enquiry is required to be conducted. Adverting to Clause 12 of the Certified Standing Order and Clause 25 of the Leave Rules of the Corporation, it is contended that in case of loss of lien, the workman is deemed to have voluntarily left the services without notice to the Corporation. The Respondent has taken contrary stands in his claim and in the appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Even as per the Tribunal, no leave application was filed and only intimation was given. Further there is no proof that the Respondent actually sent the alleged intimation to the Petitioner. The learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has been continuously mis-conducting and was a habitual absentee due to which he was awarded warnings and various punishments repeatedly. Thus, no back wages was granted to the Respondent. In the alternative it is submitted that even if no enquiry has been held by the Petitioner, the Tribunal has held an enquiry and thus no order for reinstatement could have been passed. Reliance is placed on Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Vijay Krishna Neema and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 567, Surendra Kumar Tiwari Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation and Ors. W.P.(C) 762/2011 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 1st June, 2012 and V.R. Vellore Vs. NTPC Ltd. Writ Petition No. 26555/1997 decided by the Karnataka High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent relying upon Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation AIR 2010 SC 1116 contends that where two views are possible and the Tribunal takes one view, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction would not interfere in the same. Further, there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any perversity in the impugned award and hence no case for interference is made out. Since no show cause notice was given to the Respondent, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the services of the Respondent could not be terminated without an enquiry. The order of termination is wholly non-speaking as neither the details nor the date on which the letter is issued has been mentioned. Leave Rule 25 as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner does not apply in the present case and applies only if earlier leave is granted and thereafter the workman does not report back to duty. The interpretation of Rule 25 as given by the learned Tribunal is correct. The case of the Respondent is not covered under Clause 12 of the Standing Order. Further the Tribunal did not hold any enquiry as no charge-sheet has been issued to the Petitioner. Since abandonment is misconduct, for terminating the services of the Respondent on the ground of abandonment, an enquiry was required to be held. The past conduct of the Respondent could not absolve the Petitioner of conducting an enquiry to prove the misconduct of abandonment. Reliance is placed on Clause 21(7) of the Standing Order. As regards the claim of the Petitioner regarding belated reference, it is stated that the reference was made without any delay and hence the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in dismissing the claim in this regard.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the Respondent joined as a Security Guard with the Central E