Proper service of notice is essential in employment termination cases; publication alone is insufficient to meet procedural fairness requirements.

JUDGMENT, J.

N. UNNI KRISHNAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 9.

2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to an order, dated 30-05- 2014, passed by the Head of Project, General Manager(C), NEEPCO Ltd., TrHEP, Tuirial, Mizoram, terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14-01-2013.

3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:

The petitioner, herein, had joined the services of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [for short ‘respondent Corporation’ for short], as a Khalasi, on 10-02-1982. The petitioner, in course of his service, was posted at different establishments of the respondent Corporation.

It is projected in the writ petition that since the year 1994; the petitioner, herein, was suffering from degenerative nerve disorder and the same having aggravated, he was in the year 2019, diagnosed to have been suffering from thoracic lumbar vertebrae spine spondilytis and was under treatment.

The petitioner while serving at the Tuirial Hydroelectric Project of the respondent Corporation situated in the Kolasib District of Mizoram; had applied for 2(two) days casual leave and had left the office on 14-01-2013. The petitioner, thereafter, did not resume his services. The petitioner, on 10-05-2013, 17-06-2013 and 15-07-2013, had forwarded unsigned letters requesting his controlling Officer for extension of his leave on account of the ailments suffered by him. Such communications not having as its enclosures: the medical certificates; the respondent authorities in response to his letter, dated 13.05.2013, had required the petitioner to communicate anything regarding further extension of his leave, or, to resume his duties. The petitioner, had, thereafter, submitted a letter, dated 15-07-2013, seeking extension of his leave.

In the above circumstance, the respondent Corporation, vide communication, dated 18-11-2013, by recording that the petitioner was in the habit of sending unsigned request letters without any date seeking extension of his leave by adducing the cause of absence as due to back pain and thereby, staying absent, which was viewed seriously by the competent authority; proceeded to require the petitioner to resume his services within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which, appropriate disciplinary action as may be deemed fit, shall be initiated against him in accordance with the certified standing orders of the Corporation.

The said communication was followed by a further communication, dated 05-12-2023, wherein, the petitioner was again required to report for duties within 15 days from the date of issuance of the letter, failing which, it was held that disciplinary action including the process for termination of his service as per the provisions of the certified standing orders of the Corporation; would be initiated against him, by treating his willful absence from duty to be voluntary abandonment of service and that his name would be stuck-off from the rules of the Corporation.

Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, not having resume