BILAL NAZKI, J. - (1.) This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.12.2002 in WPNo.21519 of 2000.
(2.) The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Controller in National Thermal Power Corporation at Ramagundam on 23.3.1984. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 1.7.1987. He remained absent from duty from 1.11.1988 to 7.3.1990. He was, however, allowed to rejoin duty on 8.3.1990. By proceedings dated 25.5.1992 warning was issued to the petitioner to be careful in future. Thereafter the petitioner was denied promotion and according to him, his juniors were promoted. He filed a writ petition being WP No.22481 of 1994. On 28.9.1998 the petitioner was transferred from Ramagundam to Kayamkulam in Kerala State. He filed a writ petition being WP No.26155 of 1998 and the High Court granted interim stay of transfer. On 4.12.1998 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against him for his absence from duty from 1.11.1998 to 7.3.1990. The petitioner filed his explanation on 30.1.1999. 2nd respondent awarded punishment of withholding of promotion for two years. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 26.4.1999. WP No.26155 of 1998 was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the 2nd respondent- Management to consider the petitioner's representation to retain him in the State of A.P. The High Court stayed the transfer for a period of three months, which was the period during which the 2nd respondent had to consider his representation. The petitioner made a representation on 12.9.1999 for his retention. On 1.10.1999 he was informed that his request for retention at Ramagundam had been rejected and he was relieved of his duty at Ramagundam on 4.10.1999. According to the petitioner, he went on making representations, but did not join at Kayamukulam, therefore the respondents passed an order on 7.8.2000. By this order it was communicated to the petitioner that it was deemed that he had abandoned his service of Corporation as he was not attending his duties from 4.10.1999. This order was challenged in the present writ petition and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal.
(3.) The only submission made before this Court is that the abandonment order could not have been passed without an enquiry which virtually amounts to dismissal of the petitioner from service.;