- (1.) Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Jain for opposite party. The petitioner's services have been terminated vide order dated 14.5.2009 passed by Managing Director as contained in Annexure 1 in the writ petition. The services have been terminated due to the fact that the petitioner remained absent for about 22 months without any authority or permission from the employer. Initially the petitioner moved an application for three days' of casual leave but later on extended the leave till the end of next month. Petitioner did not join the services and letters written to him on 16.2.2012, 26.2.2012, 27.8.2012 and 6.4.2009 but the petitioner did not report for duties. The petitioner wrote letter dated 20.3.2009 that the leave may be extended till 20.5.2009 because of the illness of his wife but the petitioner did not annex any document to substantiate his application or to substantiate the illness of his wife. No medical certificate was placed before the authorities. The letter written by the opposite parties dated 6.4.2009 was returned back with the inscription that the person lives outside and no further address has been given by him. Later on special messenger was sent to the residence of the petitioner. The peon has been named who was sent with the termination order. He met his father who refused to take the termination order but did not communicate the address of his son. Finally the services have been terminated by the impugned order.
(2.) Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner's services could not have been terminated without any inquiry. She submits that there are leave rules under Chapter VII (U.P. State Bridge Corporation Services Rules) sub-rule 3 of Clause XIII deals with the extraordinary leave. It provides that in case the person refused to resume the duty after the maximum period admissible, his services may be terminated after giving notice in writing to that effect. Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner forcefully argued that no such notice was given to the petitioner, hence termination order is bad.
(3.) Sri Shishir Jain, on the other hand has relied upon paras 3, 4, 5 & 7 of his counter affidavit. In nut-shell he has argued that several letters were written on the address available with the department. Petitioner had not changed his address and the leave applications were being sent from the same address. In such a situation it cannot be said that notice was not given to him and the termination order has been passed in violation of Clause XIII sub Rule 3 of the Rules.;