Termination of service must be communicated effectively; otherwise, it lacks legal force, especially for regular employees protected under specific service rules.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

The State by way of instituting this intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to the judgment & order, dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned single Judge in WP(c)370(AP)2022.

2. The basic facts requisite for a decision on the issues arising in the present appeal, is noticed as under:

The sole respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Driver temporarily under the Directorate of Information & Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide order, dated 28.08.1982. The sole respondent/writ petitioner, in terms of the order of appointment, joined his services in the Office of the DIPRO, Daporijo. Thereafter, vide order, dated 24.01.1991, the sole respondent/writ petitioner was subjected to transfer from Daporijo to Ziro, which was complied by him and he had joined at Ziro on 11.07.1994.

The authorities vide communication, dated 22.08.1995, had allowed the sole respondent/writ petitioner to cross the efficiency bar in the scale of pay drawn by him @ Rs. 950-1400/- p.m.. While serving, as such, at Ziro; the sole respondent/writ petitioner had proceeded to avail Earned Leave for 65 days w.e.f. 15.10.1996 to 18.12.1996 and on expiry of the leave granted did not resume his services.

It is the projected case of the sole respondent/writ petitioner that he had fallen seriously ill and was required to be admitted in the District Hospital Ziro w.e.f. 18.08.1996 to 20.09.2001. The respondent authorities issued communications to the sole respondent/writ petitioner to rejoin his services on expiry of his earned leave and there being no response, the Director of Information & Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the termination notice dated 12.02.1998 to the sole respondent/writ petitioner, by invoking the provisions of sub-Rule (i) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965; intimating him that that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the expiry of 1(one) from the date on which the notice is served on him.

The said notice was not put to challenge by the sole respondent/writ petitioner, although the sole respondent/writ petitioner has contended that he had approached the authorities for revocation of the same, implying knowledge of the same. Poised thus after lapse of considerable period of time, the sole respondent/writ petitioner instituted writ petition being WP(C)31(AP)2018 before this Court praying for release of his salaries. The said writ petition was given a final consideration vide judgment & order, dated 02.02.2018, requiring the Director of Information & Public Relations, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to consider and dispose of his representations dated 20.04.2016 and 27.04.2016, by a speaking and reasoned order. The authority, thereafter, vide a speaking order, dated 06.03.2018, disposed of the aforesaid representations, dated 20.04.2016 and 27.04.2016 by holding that the sole respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled for restoration of his services. It is in pursuance of the said speaking order, dated 06.03.2018, that the connected writ petition being WP(c)370(AP)2020, came to be instituted with the following prayers:

"In the premises aforesaid, it is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records and issue rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any o