Monoranjan Mallick, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner filing the writ petition followed by t supplementary affidavit has challenged the order of termination of service issued by the Deputy Chief Personal Manager (works) Alloy Steel Plant Durgapur.
(2.) The facts are briefly as follows : The petitioner while working Assistant Roller Sheet Mill Alioy Steal Plant Durgapur application for leave on 6.6.1982 to the concerned authority for the purpose of visiting Bangkok. Singapur and Qualalampur. For the purpose of the said visit the petitioner applied for no objection certificate from M.K. Banerjee, Asst. Manager (PL/OP) issued the requisite no-objection. According to the petitioner the petitioner did not get any reply or objection to the said leave application till June 27, 1982, that he again submitted an application on June 27, 1982 Inter alia, pointing out that ho had not yet received the reply So this leave application but the concerned authority failed to communicate the decision on the leave application dated 6.6.1982 and that as such cs a man of ordinary prudence was natural for him to proceed on the basis that the leave as prayed has been sanctioned by the concerned authority. It is further case of the petitioner that on 29.6.82 he sent a telegraph intimating (be authorities that be was proceeding abroad on 29.6.82 and would join his duty on 20.7.1982, but when be went to join his duty on 20.7.1982 he wet not allowed to join on the plea that his service have already been terminated by the order dated 14.7.1982,that he did not receive that Set tier till 22.7.1982, that She petitioner challenges the said order as illegal and unvalid, that even if it be assumed that the petitioner was in unauthorised absence the Respondent had to draw up departmental proceeding by issuing proper notice and reasonable opportunity to defend the charge but without giving such opportunity such order of germination could not have been passed.
(3.) Hence the writ petition for quashing the order of termination and the reinstatement of the petition in service with all back wages. Tho Respondents have constitutes this writ petition in filing an affidavit in-opposition for the main writ petition and another affidavit-in opposition to the supplementary affidavit. The case of the Respondent it at follows:- The application for leave of the petitioner was refused by the letter dated 20th June, 1982 which was attempted to be handed over to the petitioner in office bat smelling refusal he did not accept the letter. According to Standing Order 29 (ii) (g), a copy of this order was sent to his address by Registered Post and another copy was pasted in the notice Board on observing necessary formalities. The petitioner was thus fully aware of the refusal of the leave, 21 at June, 1982 was the off-day of the petitioner. He enjoyed the leave. But be started remaining absence from 22nd June, 1982 without any leave or permission even though in his application for leave be applied for leave from 29.6.1982. Having found no notice or explanation from the petitioner as to why be was absenting from 22nd June, 1982 the Alloy Steel Authorities invoked standing order No. 13 (xi) and informed this decision of termination of service in terms of the said standing . As the Standing order forms terms and conditions of service. The Respondent acted in accordance with the terms of this above standing order and when the said clause has been invoked there was no necessity to issue any show cause notice or stand any departmental proceeding before passing the order of termination.;