Long absence from service without proper intimation or correspondence can amount to abandonment of service, leading to automatic termination of employment.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

This original petition is filed by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the order of the Tribunal in OA No.131 of 2020.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

The petitioner/applicant was the driver in the Andaman Lakshadeep Harbour Works, who was originally appointed as temporary driver on adhoc basis on 28.05.1984. Thereafter, his appointment was confirmed as per Annex.A2 order dated 22.08.1990. According to the petitioner, he fell ill in 1994 due to Hepatitis and hence, applied for leave along with Annex.A3 Medical Certificate dated 21.01.1994 issued by a hospital at Port Blair. According to the petitioner, the leave was being extended in support of Medical Certificate and after recovering from his illness, he reported for duty on 02.02.2011. However, he was not permitted to rejoin duty and was informed that his service has been terminated on account of long absence. Aggrieved by this, though the petitioner has approached the Kolkatta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal with OA No.141/AN/2011, it was withdrawn due to the pendency of an appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority challenging termination. While so, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal, against which, OA No.131 of 2020 has been filed. The Tribunal, after elaborate consideration of the issue, declined to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority and rejected the original application, finding that the petitioner never informed about his ailment and never sought for leave. It was further held that the administration was justified in terminating the petitioner by due process of law. Challenging this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner, who was a permanent employee, was terminated from service without following due procedure of law, which is per se illegal. It is argued that he being a permanent employee, the Standing Order issued in respect of work-charged labourers is not applicable to him and that, the termination order was not served on the petitioner and as such, it is not known as to when service of the petitioner was terminated. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was undergoing treatment and became medically fit only on 21.01.2011 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner requested to permit him to join duty, which was rejected.

4. Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner did not attend office for 16 years and six months, which is not unauthorized absence, but abandonment of service. It is further submitted that the notice of order of termination was served on the petitioner. According to the learned Deputy Solicitor General, the petitioner has not produced any Medical Certificate issued by any hospital, but, only submitted Annex.R2 representation dated 25.02.1994, requesting to cancel his transfer order. A memo dated 15.03.1994 issued by the Administrative Officer, ALHW, Port Blair, was served on him in the address shown in Annex.R2 representation, informing that his request was rejected and directing him to report for duty without further delay. However, in spite of receipt of the above memo, he neither joined duty nor submitted any Medical Certificate/application for extension of leave; and it is after a lapse of 17 years, he submitted his duty report on 02.02.2011 along with Annex.R4 Medical Certificate and Medical Fitness Certificate.

5. The case of the petitioner is that along with Annex.R5 application dated 09.08.1994, he had enclosed Annex.R4 Medical Certificate dated 30.04.1994, wherein it was certified that the petitioner was suffering from Pakshagatam (Vatta Rogam) and the doctor, who issued the certificate, had treated the petitioner for a period of 16 years, 8 months and 20 days from 30.04.1994 to 20.01.2011. However, subsequently, on seeking confirmation regarding the genuinene