- (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Order No.SAIL.III.12 (36)/98 -BSL dated 11.10.1999 passed by the respondent No.2 pursuant to the order dated 23.4.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in O.P. No.10649 of 1999 -P, interalia, directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation, filed by the petitioner in connection with his voluntary retirement under VRS 98. The petitioner further prays for a declaration that he is entitled to get voluntary retirement on the basis of Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from the date of his application and relieve the petitioner with effect from the date of application of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: - In the instant case it appears that the petitioner was working as a Manager in BSL and had joined the services in the year 1973 and thereafter it became a unit of SAIL on 20.2.1998. A VRS scheme was introduced as per order No.PER/RR/165 dated 20.2.1998 and according to the petitioner he applied on 7.4.1998. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Manager, Electrical Data Processing in Bokaro Steel Ltd. On 6.4.98 the petitioner applied for T.A. allowance to his controlling officer which was refused. On hearing nothing he made a representation before the Managing Director, Bokaro Steel Plant who was the competent authority to accept the Voluntary retirement application under the said scheme and further requested to be relieved from 30.4.98. The petitioner applied for leave and was sanctioned earned leave from 30.4.98 to 31.5.98 and in the mean time he was also offered an employment in U.S.A. which required him to immediately report for duty. The petitioner again applied for earned leave from 01.6.98 to 30.6.98. On 26.6.98 the petitioner received a letter asking him to join duty from 01.7.98 and the petitioner instead of joining, again applied for earned leave from 01.7.98 to 31.7.98. However, the respondents informed him vide letter dated 98 that his application for extension of leave was not sanctioned and thus he was absent from duty without any sanctioned leave for which disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated for unauthorized absence from duty. Again the respondents sent a letter dated 14.98 to report for duty within 10 days failing which disciplinary action was to be initiated. Respondent No.5 finally issued a memorandum on 21.10.98 stating that a disciplinary enquiry for unauthorized absence from duty was sought to be initiated. The petitioner filed its reply to the charges on 2.11.98 followed by another representation on 26.11.98 requesting the respondent No.5 to accept his V.R.S. application with effect from 15.4.9 3 On 16.1.99 the Deputy Chief, Personnel Manager informed the petitioner that his V.R.S. application submitted on 7.4.98 was sent to respondent No.5 for recommendation but the request was not considered and this was verbally explained. It was specifically pointed out in the letter that validity of V.R.S. scheme has already expired and thus the presumption that it was still pending even after expiry of the scheme was on the face of it erroneous. It was also pointed out that the sanctioned leave came to an end on 30.6.98 and the petitioner was duty bound to report on 01.7.98 but he did not report for duty and instead went on applying for extension of leave which was not sanctioned. Thus the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 01.7.1998 and two registered letters on 03.98 followed by 14.98 were sent to report for duty but the petitioner miserably failed and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and did not even choose to respond to the above letters and it was in this background that the written statement of defence was sought and on receipt, it was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly disciplinary proceeding was initiated.
(3.) THE petitioner being constrained filed a writ petition O.P. No.10649 of 1999 P before Kerala High Court and vide an order dated 23rd April, 1999 the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the pending representation with regard to disciplinary action and the V.R. S. application. In compliance to the order passed by the Kerala High Court the Secretary, Government of India, Steel and Mines disposed of the representation vide a detail speaking order on 11th October, 1999 after affording full opportunity to both the sides i.e. Bokaro Steel Ltd. as well as the petitioner herein and considered each and every documents which has been specified in the impugned order and finally held that it was the prerogative of the management to accept or reject the V.R.S. scheme of 1998 and no one can claim acceptance under V.R.S. as a matter of right. It also held that vide letter dated 6.4.98 it was specifically recorded that his T.A. application in lieu of V.R.S. application was rejected and he had knowledge of it and accordingly the decision of the Management was upheld.;