- (1.) The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as clerk on 21.11.79. He joined his duties on 24.11.79. the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the respondents by order dated 13.12.91 w.e.f. 19.8.91 on the ground that he absented from the duty. The petitioner claims that he applied for leave which was subsequently sanctioned after his dismissal by the respondents. The order of dismissal is under challenge in the instant writ petition.
(2.) The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioner has got an adequate statuary alternative remedy of filing an appeal under regulations framed by the corporation, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed on the availability of alternative remedy. He further argued that since the petitioner was absent from duty unauthorisedly as his leave was not sanctioned, therefore, the respondents issued a show cause notice on 8.10.91 by registered post as to why he be not dismissed from service under the regulations. It was stated in the notice that the petitioner had been absent from duty from 19.8.91 after joining at Rath on 8.8.91. It was also mentioned that the petitioner was absent earlier also from 14.7.90 to 23.3.91, 30.3.91 to 7.8.91 and no application has been given by the petitioner for the period 14.7.90 to 25.3.91. It was further stated that the petitioner is continuously absent from duty which is in violation of the regulations. Charge sheet and show cause notice has been given to the petitioner but the petitioner has shown no improvement. In case the petitioner within 15 days did not reply to the notice then it will be presumed that he was is not interested in the service of the corporation. Since no reply was given by the petitioner to the show cause notice , therefore, the order dated 13.12.91 was passed by the respondent no. 19.8.91. 1 dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f.
(3.) I have heard Shri Anil Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri O.P. Singh , learned counsel appearing for the respondents.;