The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a contract of service as a punishment for overstaying leave must comply with the requirements of Art.311(2) of the Constitution, and failure to do so renders the termination illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and arbitrary.

1. This original petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by a Staff Artist Announcer in the All India Radio, Trivandrum to quash Ext. P6 order issued by the first respondent, Station Director terminating her contract and to direct the respondents to reinstate her without break in service and to pay her salary and allowances due to her.

2. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows:

Petitioner was appointed as a Staff Artist Announcer in the All India Radio, Trivandrum on a monthly fee of Rs. 425/- as per memorandum dated 29-11-1976 (Ext. P1) on a three year contract with one year's probation likely to be extended by three months and subject to passing of departmental tests. According to Ext. P1, she would be considered for long term contract upto the age of 58 years only on successful completion of such probationary period and passing of test. Accordingly, Ext. P2 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the President of India represented by the Station Director. On 29-9-1978 under Ext. P3, petitioner's probationary period was terminated with effect from 1-8-1978 and her contract was extended upto 4-5-2005, the date on which she would attain the age of 58 years.

3. On 31-12-1982, petitioner absented herself from duty. According to her, her husband had informed the Programme Executive over the phone about her inability to attend on account of the riots in Trivandrum. Ext. RI (b) memo dated 6-1-1983 was issued to her asking her to explain her absence by 30-1-1983. According to the petitioner, she sent a reply to Ext. RI (b) under the original of Ext. P7, though this is denied by the respondents. There is no dispute that she has a sick child suffering from rheumatic heart. She submitted application for earned leave for one month from 3-1-1983 mentioning the reason as "domestic affairs". On account of acute shortage of Announcers, Ext. R1 (a) memo dated 4-1-1983 was issued calling her back to duty immediately. She did not comply. The file produced before me shows that at one stage it was being considered whether her absence should be treated as dies-non and whether disciplinary action should be taken. On 20-1-1983, Ext. R1(c) memo was issued alleging that she had not replied to the two earlier memos, that the matter was being viewed seriously and the contract was liable to be terminated unless she reported immediately. She sent a reply pointing out that her second child was ill with rheumatic heart and if leave could not be sanctioned she may be compelled to resign and also pointing out that she had duly sent replies to the two earlier memos and if they had not been received, she would send copies of those letters. As per memo dated 17-2-1983, leave was regularised and she was granted 17 days' earned leave, two days' half-pay leave and 11 days' Extra-ordinary Leave (EOL.) till 1-2-1983.

4. Meanwhile, on 30-1-1983 she submitted an application for extension of leave for sixty days from 2-2-1983 to 2-4-1983 stating that leave was necessary to enable her to attend on her sick child. As per memo dated 17-2-1983, EOL. without medical certificate for sixty days till 2-4-1983 was sanctioned for her; however, she was asked to produce medical certificate while rejoining duty. On 31-3-1983, petitioner submitted another application for extension of leave for ninety days from 3-4-1983 to 1-7-1983 to enable her to attend on her child. Asper memo dated 11-4-1983, E O.L., was sanctioned for 19 days till 21-3-1983 on the ground that according to R.32 of the Central Civil Services Leave Rules (for short 'the Leave Rules') on any one occasion she was not eligible for E. O. L. without medical certificate for more than ninety days and she had already availed of E O.L. for 71 days (11 plus 60). By this memo, she was also informed that if she failed to join duty on 22-4-1983, the contract may be terminated. According to the petitioner, she sent a letter on 12-4-1983 pleading her inability to join d