NITYANANDA DUTTA Vs. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Rigman (Drilling) in the establishment of the respondent No. 1 and he joined the post on 27.1.1983. In due course he got promotion to the post of Topman (Drilling) and worked as such till 11.5.1994. Service conditions provides 14 days off from duty after 14 days work in the Rig. The petitioner availing off-period was supposed to resume his duties on 25.5.1994. Petitioner's wife was suffering from pelvic inflammatory disease and he could not resume his duty on 25.5.1994. Accordingly, he requested the Drilling inCharge to allow leave for one month. His wife was in Sibsagar Civil Hospital upto 24.8.1994. During that period, the petitioner also fell sick (tuberculosis) and was under treatment of Dr A.K. Sarma, District Tuberculosis Officer with effect from 16.8.94 to 8.2.1996. The petitioner submitted his leave application to Shri R.K. Gupta, the Drilling In-Charge for onward transmission of his leave application to the higher authorities for extra-ordinary leave under Regulation 15(2)(a) of the Leave Regulation, 1968. After recovery he met the Additional Director at Jorhat on 10.2.1996 and submitted his joining report along with fitness certificate. The Additional Director advised him to resume duties at the project site. On his way to Borhala Project Site the petitioner was abducted by some unidentified gunmen belong to extremist group. His abduction was for raising demand for ransom from the employer. Ultimately, the extremist group released him after nine months of captivity at Siliguri. During captivity, the petitioner lost his state of mind. He was eventually rescued from Guwahati by the members of his family. Thereafter, he submitted an application on 23.5.97 before the Additional Director for permission to resume duty. The Additional Director asked the petitioner to submit an application giving reasons for his long absence. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application and on a number of occasions visited the office for permission. But no permission was given as prayed for. The petitioner submitted an application on 27.9.97 (Annexure-H). The respondent authority by the letter dated 18.12.1997 informed him that he was no longer in the service due to prolonged unauthorised absence from duty and has been deemed to have resigned from service with effect from 20.8.1994. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of deemed resignation, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) The respondent authority in their affidavit-in-opposition averred that the petitioner did not submit any application for leave on account of illness either for himself or for his wife. Petitioner's claim that he submitted a leave application to Shri R.K. Gupta, the then Drilling In- Charge and the joining report to the Additional Director of ONGC have been denied. Their case is that the petitioner has been absenting himself from duty with effect from 23.5.1994 and all efforts were made to secure his attendance. Having failed, the respondent-authority had to initiate proceeding against the writ petitioner as per provisions of Regulation 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Regulation, 1968.

(3.) Mr B. Katakey, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the deeming provisions in Rule 14(5) on the ground that it is violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. According to Shri Katakey, no employ can be deprived of his service except without initiation of appropriate proceedings. Shri P.C. Deka, learned counsel for the ONGC, however, urged that the proceeding was initiated and notices were sent to the permanent address of the writ petitioner. Having failed to obtain his presence, the authority published notices in the leading daily newspapers both in Assamese and English and eventually had to take the decision as per provisions of Regulation 14(5) of the Leave Regulation of 1968.