The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of an employee's services requires a regular inquiry, and the employer must prove willful absence of the employee and follow the principles of natural justice in the inquiry proceedings.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

By the medium of the present appeal, the appellant-employer (writ respondent) has questioned the judgment and order, dated 7th May, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No.1978 of 2008, titled Mohinder Singh Malhi vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-employee (writ petitioner) was allowed and the termination order was quashed, (for short, the impugned judgment).

2. The writ petitioner, being a regular employee of the appellant-Corporation, was serving the Corporation as Junior Engineer, applied for 42 days earned leave, which was sanctioned on 24th August, 1981, made applications for extension of leave on various dates right from 7th October, 1981 to 22nd July, 1983 and in the month of February, 1985, when he came back to join his duties, he was informed, rather told, that his services stood already terminated w.e.f. 1st November, 1983, vide office order dated 18th November, 1983, by the appellant/writ respondent. The writ petitioner made representations for re-employment and also questioned the termination order by the medium of representations, which were rejected, constraining him to file the writ petition and question the impugned termination order, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition.

3. Appellant-Corporation resisted the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the writ petition and quashed the termination order in terms of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge has held that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated without conducting a regular inquiry, and thus, the said action of the appellant-employer was held to be against the principles of natural justice and in breach of the mandate of law applicable.

4. The learned Single Judge has also discussed Section 73 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is reproduced in the impugned judgment.

5. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the material available on the record and are of the view that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and needs to be upheld for the following reasons.

6. Section 73 of the Act provides for giving a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee for showing cause. Section 73 of the Act also postulates that in case the competent authority is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give to the delinquent employee an opportunity of showing cause, then the competent authority is required to record reasons.

7. Thus, it was obligatory for the appellant-Corporation to adopt the procedure enshrined in Section 73 of the Act, which procedure was never adopted by it.

8. The Writ Court has categorically recorded that the petitioner was never served with any show cause notice. It was for the employer-appellant to plead and prove that it was not practicable to provide opportunity to show cause and hear him, for which, the appellant-Corporation was required to record reasons. The learned Single Judge has recorded categorical finding that no material was ever placed on record to show that such reasons were ever recorded by the appellant-Corporation.

9. It is beaten law of the land that for passing removal, dismissal or termination order, inquiry is required to be conducted. However, in case the requirement of conducting the inquiry is to be dispensed with, in that eventuality, reasons have to be recorded separately. While going through the writ record and the impugned judgment, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that no such reasons have been recorded or mind has been applied by the competent Authority, while dispensing with the requirement of conducting the regular inquiry. Thus on this count alone, the impugned judgment needs to be upheld.

10. It appears that the petitioner was treated as absent from duty since his application for extension of leave was not app