D.N.Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no. 1 in W.P(S) no. 3519 of 2013.
(2.) The writ petition was preferred by respondent no. 1, challenging the order of disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, whereby he was removed from the services mainly on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent on and from 15.05.2000 till the date of his removal, i.e. up to 16.08.2002. The disciplinary authority has also dismissed the departmental appeal vide order dated 24.03.2003. Both these orders one which is passed by the disciplinary authority dated 16.08.2002 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 24.03.2003 were under challenge in the writ petition, preferred by respondent no. 1, which was allowed and hence, the original respondent no. 1 has preferred this present Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that initially also, this respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) had gone on leave for 569 days and in second spell, he wanted to go on study leave to pursue his "Companies Secretary Study" with effect from 15.05.2000 for two years (730 days). These leaves were not granted, but, this employee (original petitioner) has granted leaves to himself which led into issuance of charge-sheet, and thereafter the charges levelled against the delinquent were proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) and in appeal, the disciplinary departmental authority confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority.
(3.) Factual Matrix: • The respondent no.1 is the original petitioner was an employee, who was appointed in the services of Life Insurance Corporation on 09.01.1996 as an Assistant who joined the services on 19.01.1996. • After sometime into the services, he went on leaves for 569 days which is more than one year i.e. approximately 19 months. • Life Insurance Corporation with all reluctance had sanctioned these leaves, this is chapter no. 1, so far as unauthorized absenteeism leave is concerned of the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner). • Now, second spell of unauthorized leave started. Encouraged by the earlier sanction of leaves, this respondent preferred an application for study leaves to pursue his "Companies Secretary study" for two years (24 months). This application was preferred on 16.02.1998. • Thus, he joined the services on 19.01.1996 and thereafter proceeded on leaves for approximately 19 months. Thus, if the leave period is added to 19.01.1996, it comes to approximately the end of July 1997. Thus, he has remained on leave for this much period and again he has given application on 16.02.1998 for study leaves for two years and that too for "Companies Secretary Study" which can be pursued from his home also. • Thus, after joining the services as an Assistant on 19.01.1996, he went on leave for 569 days which brings a period approximately up to August 1997, and after five or six months again, an application for leave was given on 16.02.1998 for study leave of two years. • There is no provision for study leaves neither under the Life Insurance Corporation Act nor under the Rule or Regulation enacted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The respondent no.1 (original petitioner) tendered his conditional resignation on 11.04.2000 that he will go on leave on or before 15.05.2000. Thus, the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) has already made an announcement that whether management sanction leave or not, he shall proceed with the leave with effect from 15.05.2000. • When the leave was not sanctioned, again the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) made a request that he should be transferred to Ranchi, which is the capital city of State of Jharkhand from the District Daltongang. • Meanwhile, several letters were sent by this appellant-management to resume the duties because the respondent no.1 was not attending the duties with effect from 15.05.2000. These letters are annexed with memo of this Letters Patent Appeal which are dated 10.05.2000, 27.05.2000, 10.11.2000 etc. • As the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) has not resumed the duties, the Life Insurance Corporation-appellant issued a charge-sheet on 16.01.2001 which is at Annexure-10 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal. • It was replied by respondent no. 1 that this respondent no. 1 had also preferred one leave application to the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation on 24.11.1999 that the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) wants to proceed on leave with effect from 01.01.2000 for two years for his "Company Secretary Study". • An Inquiry officer was appointed and inquiry was conducted, several witnesses including delinquent-respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) were examined. • On the basis of evidences on record, both, oral and documentary, the Inquiry Officer arrived at the conclusion in the report dated 07.02.2002 that the charges levelled against the delinquent-respondent no.1 (original petitioner) has been proved ( Annexure-21 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). • Second show-cause notice was given to the delinquent on 22.06.2002 which was replied by the respondent no. 1. • On the basis of the Inquiry officer's report and the reply given by the delinquent disciplinary authority-Senior Divisional Manager, Eastern Zonal Office Jamshedpur has passed an order on 16. 08.2002 whereby, the services of the delinquent-respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was brought to end an end by order of removal.. • Departmental appeal was preferred by respondent no.1. Departmental appeal preferred by respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) was dismissed, vide order dated 24.03.2003 which was passed by Zonal Manager Eastern Zonal Office, Kolkata. • Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 16.08.2002 and the order passed by departmental appellate authority dated 24.03.2003, a writ petition was preferred by respondent no. 1 being W.P.(S) no. 3519 of 2003. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 by quashing and setting aside the aforesaid two orders, mainly on the ground that as application was preferred by the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) before the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation for his two years study leave and the reply of the management which was the rejection order, was not supplied to the delinquent, the matter was remanded by the learned Single Judge to the Appellate Authority and hence, respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal mainly on the ground that no prejudice has been caused to the respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) for want of supply of reply of the Chairman rejecting his study leave with effect from 01.01.2000 because the whole matter is of unauthorized absenteeism of the delinquent with effect from 15.05.2000, till the order of dismissal (16.08.2002).;