The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rule 31 of the KELTRON – Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1986 is declared ultra-vires and void, and the petitioner is deemed to have continued in the service of KELTRON with certain limitations.

Headnote:
Rule 31 - Termination of Service - Rule 31 of the KELTRON – Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1986 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 31 of the Rules is declared ultra-vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is held as an illegal and irrational term in a contract of employment. The court referred to various legal provisions and interpretations including the principles of natural justice, security of tenure for permanent employees, and the concept of termination of service as a penalty.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Deputy Engineer in the service of KELTRON, sought different types of leave to engage in honorary work for the Ernakulam District Panchayat. KELTRON deemed the petitioner unauthorizedly absent from duty and directed him to show cause against forfeiture of his lien in service, leading to the petitioner's loss of lien and removal from the rolls of KELTRON.
Finding of the Court:

The court declared Rule 31 of the Rules as ultra-vires and void, and deemed the petitioner to have continued in the service of KELTRON with certain limitations. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of the declarations granted and directions and orders issued.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of Rule 31 of the KELTRON – Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1986, and the petitioner's entitlement to continued service and consequential benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principles of natural justice, security of tenure for permanent employees, and the concept of termination of service as a penalty. The court held that Rule 31 of the Rules is unfair, contrary to the Rule of Law, and infracts the equality principle enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court declared Rule 31 of the Rules as void and inoperative, and deemed the petitioner to have been in service as if the impugned order were not there, with certain limitations. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent of the declarations granted and directions and orders issued.

Judgment :-

After completion of one year training with it, the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Engineer in the service of the first respondent Corporation - KELTRON on 2-6-1991 and was confirmed on 3-12-1991 as per Ext.P3 order.

2. Along with his official duties in the service of the first respondent, the petitioner did some honorary work, for the Ernakulam District Panchayat. Later, that activity turned out to be one, which called for his continuous involvement in the service of the Panchayat. This led to the petitioner seeking different slots of different types of leave and the first respondent granting such leave, though occasionally, with great reluctance and after notifying the petitioner that such exercise does not appear to be in the interest of KELTRON.

3. Be that as it may, after a particular spell of earned leave, the petitioner rejoined duty and applied for long leave without pay. That was not granted. He, however, continued to contribute his might to the developmental activities of the District Panchayat rather than as an employee of KELTRON. This led the first respondent to take the view that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty since 4-4-2000. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to show cause against forfeiture of his lien in service, in terms of Rule 31 of the KELTRON – Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”. He submitted his explanation as per letter dated 22-4-2000. KELTRON found that his explanation was not acceptable and accordingly, he was instructed to report for duty on or before 10-5-2000 as per Office Memo dated 27-4-2000. He failed to report for duty as directed. On such premise, it was deemed that as a necessary consequence, his lien was lost following the intimation given to him on 13-4-2000 and 27-4-2000, by the operation of Rule 31 of the Rules. Therefore, it was concluded that the petitioner has no lien, any more, in the service of KELTRON as he had abandoned his such employment. Resultantly, Ext.P1 was issued whereby the petitioner was informed of his loss of lien and that such loss of lien is being thereby confirmed and his name has been removed from the rolls of KELTRON and he is no longer its employee. He was advised to collect his outstanding dues. Petitioner submitted Ext.P17 appeal against the aforesaid decision to the Chairman of the Corporation on 22nd June, 2000. Stating that no action was taken on that appeal, this writ petition is filed on 19-7-2001.

4. Petitioner seeks a declaration that Rule 31 of the Rules is ultra-vires Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and is hence void and inoperative. He also seeks to quash Ext.P1 whereby he was intimated that it is confirmed that he has lost lien in employment and that his name has been removed from the rolls of KELTRON. He further seeks a declaration that he shall be deemed to have continued in the service of KELTRON with all consequential benefits.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for KELTRON that, having regard to the fact that there are no disputed facts, questions of law alone arise for decision and hence no counter affidavit.

6. Heard Adv. Rekha Vasudevan, for the petitioner and Adv. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, for the Corporation.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that loss of lien from service in terms of Rule 31 is essentially a punishment when that rule is understood in the context of Rule 5 (6) which states that without prejudice to the generality of the term “misconduct”, absence without leave or over-staying the sanctioned leave for more than seven consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation would amount to misconduct. It is pointed out that the lien that is lost under Rule 31 is from service and not merely from a post in the service and therefore, the loss of lien is nothing but termination of service and that the Explanation to Rule 19 of the Rules which enumerates the penalties, takes away on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document