J.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) By this petition an order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on 14-4-89 has been challenged.
(2.) The opposite party no. 1 was working in the department of Animal Husbandry. He applied for leave and was on leave till 6-7-1968. According to the petitioners, he did not apply for leave subsequently and unauthorisedly absented himself till he reported on 20-11-1985. Tie petitioners claim that the notice was sent to the opposite party on 16-6-1980 at his address in Uganda and then again in 1984. He did not show cause. He ceased to be in employment by virtue of Rule 18 of the Fundamental Rules. The opposite party, however approached the Tribunal by claim petition. The tribunal concluded that the services could not be terminated without notice allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and that the notices have not been served. It was, therefore, found that the petitioner continued to be in service and that his services did not stand terminated by the order dated 16-6-1980. He was found to be entitled to all the benefits including that of salary and allowances till the date of superannuation.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties who have exchanged affidavits.;