- (1.) Special Appeal No. 1141 of 2009 as also Special Appeal No. 299 of 2003 have been filed by the U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director (Respondent-Appellant) assailing the judgment dated 8.9.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31202 of 1992 (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others) as also the judgment dated 3.1.2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52715 of 2000 (Roop Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) by a learned single Judge of this Court.
(2.) The Petitioner-Respondent in Special Appeal No. 1141 of 1999 claims to have been appointed as Production Inspector on 22.8.1983 and vide order dated 24.6.1988 he was transferred from Raebareli to Rishikesh. It is alleged that he was relieved from Raebareli on 5.1.1989 for joining at Rishikesh. However, he claims to have fallen ill on 6.1.1989 and hence he moved a representation dated 13.1.1989 praying that his transfer be cancelled. He alleges that an order dated 21.1.1989 was passed posting him at Naugaon production centre, but he failed to join whereupon a notice dated 25.1.1989 was issued to him. He applied for leave before the Project Officer, Rishikesh by his applications dated 10.1.1989, 31.1.1989, 15.2.1989, 10.3.1989, 2.4.1989, 3.4.1989 and 1.6.1989, During this period the wife of the Petitioner-Respondent also moved two applications dated 20.1.1989 and 8.2.1990 praying for cancellation of the transfer of her husband. By a directive dated 14.3.1989 he was required to get himse lf medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer and submit his report. On 10.7.1989 a letter is alleged to have been issued by the General Manager of the Corporation giving him last opportunity. The Petitioner-Respondent alleges to have made further leave applications from 16.7.1989 to 13.8.1989 where after a notice was published in the newspaper 'Swatantra Bharat' asking him to join his duties, but when he failed, his services were terminated by the order dated 7.11.1989.
(3.) According to the Corporation-Appellant after giving several opportunities to the Petitioner-Respondent to join his duties, but having failed, his services were terminated by order dated 7.11.1989 wherein it was clearly stipulated that the Petitioner has been unauthorisedly absent and appears to be not interested in performing his duties, hence his services have been dispensed with. It is stated that after two and a half years of such order the Petitioner-Respondent filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1677 of 1992 challenging his termination order dated 7.11.1989, but the writ petition was dismissed on 3.1.1992 on the ground that it was highly belated. The Petitioner-Respondent filed Special Appeal No. Nil of 1992 which was disposed of on 23.3.1992 with a direction to the Managing Director of the Corporation to decide the representation, if made by the Petitioner-Respondent. The said representation was rejected on 22.5.1992 by the Managing Director of the Corporation, who found no merit in the same. The Petitioner-Respondent thereafter filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition 31202 of 1992 challenging the order dated 22.5.1992 as also the order of termination dated 7.11.1989.;