B .S.CHAUHAN AND BHARATI SAPRU - (1.) Present petition has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 4.2.1999 (Annexure -3) passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that Shri Hari Prasad Mishra, the respondent No.2 was engaged by the Corporation on Daily Wages as a Conductor and was placed in the waiting List of Conductors in the year 1989. The nature of his job was of purely temporary. The respondent No.2, however, absented from duty without taking leave and in an unauthorised manner w.e.f. 25.8.1990. He, however, sought no leave for this period nor did he give any explanation for not turning up on the job. It has been stated in the petition and is also a matter of record that notices dated 22.11.1990 and 8.4.1991 were sent to his residential address by registered post. Despite these two notices, the respondent Mo.2 failed to turn up on the job or to file any reply or explanation against these two notices. His name was, therefore, struck off from the waiting/select list by means of the Order dated 15.7.1991. It was against this letter of termination dated 15.7.1991 that the respondent No.2 filed a claim petition, that too, in the year 1994 after a period of four years of abandoning his service. The claim of the respondent No.2 was that his services had been terminated without affording him any opportunity and without conducting any departmental enquiry. His claim was that his absence of service should have been treated as a misconduct and a proper enquiry should have been conducted against him.
(3.) IT is admitted to the respondent No.2 that the notice dated 8.4.1991 was sent to him. He, however, states that notice was received by him after the order of termination dated 15.7.1991. However, the respondent No.2 has not stated anywhere nor given any reply that even after 15.7.1991, he gave any explanation for his unauthorised absence. The letter of termination dated 15.7.1991 is a letter of simple discharge. We have perused the letter. It does not cast any stigma on the respondent No.2. From the facts and circumstances of the case as have been entailed in the writ petition and from a perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondent No.2 voluntarily abandoned his job and, therefore, lost his lien on the job. We have also examined the matter carefully to see that not one but two opportunities were given to the respondent No.2 to show cause but he failed to do so. It cannot be said that any arbitrariness was done to the respondent No.2 or that the principles of natural justice were not observed while dealing with the matter which, in any case, was purely matter of abandonment of service.;