Rakes Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Shri S.M. Wasim and Shri S.C. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Hanuman Das holding brief of Shri P.N. Mathur, represents the opposite parties. The order sheet reveals that the case was listed on several dates but counter affidavit was not filed, despite request of the petitioner and various applications seeking disposal of the writ petition between 2001 to 19th August, 2003 and this 4 Court has ordered on 10th September, 1991 that the matter shall be disposed of 1 on the next date.
(2.) In view of the above I have no option except to proceed with the case and hear the matter. This writ petition is pending for the last 13 years. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as Watchman in the service of Food Corporation of India on 16.6.1972. The copy of the appointment order has been annexed as Annexure No. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 30.3.2000. The petitioner has worked to the entire satisfaction of the opposite parties for about 14 years. The petitioner's services have been terminated by an order of termination issued on 28.2.1989, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. As the order reveals that the petitioner has been absconding from service since 14th April, 1986 without seeking prior permission from competent authority the services have been terminated according to the Rule 58 of the F.C.I. Staff Regulations of 1971. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even if the services were terminated due to continuous absence of the petitioner, a formal regular departmental enquiry was to be held under the law. The order, in fact a punitive order amounts to removal and dismissal of the petitioner without holding departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner was a temporary employee only and his services were terminable at any time without any notice, as per terms and conditions indicated in the appointment order dated 13.6.1972. The order of termination is a reasoned and explicit order which discloses as to how the petitioner had absented for about 3 years and despite notice published in the Newspaper, he did not resume the duties. The action of terminating the services of the petitioner is just, valid and proper. The order has been passed in accordance with the relevant service regulations.;