The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the principles of natural justice and the need to consider the willingness of the employee to join and work before terminating the service under the Service Rules.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Pradeep Chandra for petitioner and Sri Vivek Birla, for respondents.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are, that petitioner was appointed an attendant on daily wages in the office of General Manager Cantt, U. P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. , G. T. Road, Kanpur on 15th October 1987. His services were extended from time to time. On 12th january, 1990, he was appointed on probation for a period of one year and was thereafter confirmed. Petitioner was thereafter transferred to Bahraich on 29th January, 1990. He also received the benefit of annual increments. The Joint Director of U. P. State Handloom corporation, Kanpur issued a show cause notice to petitioner on 13. 8. 2002 for explaining his absence since 7. 8. 2002. It has been explained in Para 16 of the writ petition that he submitted the joining report on 17. 8. 2002 along with an application for medical leave. On 7. 9. 2002, he was again asked to explain his absence since 7. 8. 2002. Petitioner submitted an explanation on 9. 9. 2002, stating that on account of his illness, he was hot able to join. On 27. 9. 2002, a notice was given to him by registered post for explanation of his absence from duties upto 27. 9. 2002. On 30. 9. 2002, petitioner submitted his explanation to the Director of Management, U. P. State handloom Corporation, Kanpur in writing, that he submitted his joining report on 11. 9. 2002, which was not accepted by dealing official Shri Ram Kumar Shukla, on the ground that he should first resume his duties at the residence of Managing Director otherwise he be treated absence from duties.

( 3 ) BY the impugned order dated 20. 11. 2002, the Managing Director, U. P. State Handloom corporation Ltd. , Kanpur terminated the lien of his service with effect from 9. 9. 2002, in exercise of his powers under Chapter VIII, Rule 63-A of U. P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (Officers and Staff) Service Rules, on the ground of his continuous absence without leave.

( 4 ) SRI Pradeep Chandra, Counsel for petitioner, submits that petitioner was on medical leave upto 11. 9. 2002 and that when he requested for joining on that day, he was not allowed to join until he reports for work at the residence of Managing Director. Petitioner is a confirmed employee and he could not be detailed for domestic duties. He requested for being taken on the strength at the office, but his request was refused by Sri Ram Kumar Shukla and under the circumstances his lien in service could not have been terminated under Rule 63-A of the Service Rules. Counsel for petitioner further submits that in the impugned order, the Managing Director referred to petitioners application dated 11. 9. 2002, but accepted an incorrect report of Sri Ram Kumar shukla, and submits that the petitioner was not allowed to join. It is submitted that the respondents have not only acted arbitrarily and unreasonably but have also acted inviolation of service Rules.

( 5 ) SRI Vivek Kumar. Birla, on the other hand, submits that petitioner was absent from duties without any information since 7. 8. 2002. He was warned on a number of occasions to join the duties but he did not choose to join and in the circumstances, the Corporation was not left with any option except to terminate the services of petitioner under Rule 63-A of the Service Rules. He states that although the petitioner moved an application for joining but he was not physically present to join the duties and continued to be absent without leave.

( 6 ) A perusal of impugned order shows that initially petitioner was absent without applying for leave. The respondents, however, did not deny the fact that petitioner had made an application on 11. 9. 2003 for joining. Sri Ram Kumar Shukla, reported that petitioner did not physically present himself for duties. The report of Sri Ram Kumar Shukla was accepted without giving any opportunity to the petitioner or calling for his explanation. It is apparent from these doc