Ajay Tewari, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that the order dated 3.7.1979 removing him from service was illegal.
(2.) Both the Courts below found that the appellant left the country without obtaining no objection certificate; without getting his leave sanctioned; without leaving any forwarding address, and by making a false statement that he was going to United Kingdom while in fact he was going to Saudi Arabia. Both the Courts below found on fact that the appellant kept on receiving communications to join back but he did not bother to reply. Both the Courts below also found as a fact that the medical certificates sent by the appellant covered only the first one year of his five years' absence. Both the Courts below ultimately relied upon rule 30(iv) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 which is to the following effect:- " Where an employee has abandoned his post, the competent authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, an employee shall be deemed to have abandoned his post if he absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave for a continuous period of 90 days without any intimation therefor in writing."
(3.) Both the Courts below distinguished the judgment reported as Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & others, AIR 1971 SC 1409.;