The court upheld the termination of a permanent workman for unauthorized absence under Standing Orders, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the impact of laches in filing the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

Brij Raj Singh, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

“1. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that Lordship may kindly be pleased to allow a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26/28.02.1991 annexed as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition.

2. Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that our Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to join as Clerk-cum-Typist and further your Lordship may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit an proper in the circumstances of the cases.”

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on 06.07.1982 and thereafter his services were confirmed on 26.05.1983. The petitioner fell ill in the month of October, 1990 and he sent several letters through Under Postal Certificate (not registered) to opposite party no.2 informing him that he was suffering from illness, therefore, he should be granted leave. It is said that petitioner has sent several letters on 10.12.1990, 16.06.1992, 26.04.1994, 28.01.1997, 02.01.1999 and 12.06.2001 through Under Postal Certificate (not registered) for necessary information. The petitioner remained absent as he was ill and he also submitted the fitness certificate dated 04.02.2000 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur and the same was also sent through Under Postal Certificate (not registered). It has further stated that petitioner had given a representation for joining his service on 12.06.2001. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed the present petition on 25.07.2001. Thereafter, by way of amendment, impugned termination order dated 26/28.02.1991 has been challenged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Clause-19(ii) read with Clause-26 of the Certified Standing Orders of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (for short “Standing Orders”) the answering opposite party has to follow the procedure and the penalty for major punishment could have been passed only after following the due procedure by doing a detailed enquiry. He has further submitted that in the present case, without initiating regular proceedings, name of the petitioner has been struck off from the roll of the organisation in view of Clause-19(ii) of the Sanding Orders. It has been submitted that Clause-3 of the Standing Orders indicates that workmen of the companies are classified in six categories and the petitioner is a permanent workman. Clause-19(i) of the Standing Orders indicates that service of a permanent workman may be terminated by either party giving to the other a notice of three months in writing or paying equivalent wage/salary in lieu of notice, whereas Clause-19(ii) of the Standing Orders indicates that if a workman remains absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days and absents himself beyond a period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall be deemed to have lost his lien on his appointment, unless he returns.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that management has wrongly t