PURNENDU CHAKRABORTY Vs. HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the orders dated 5.1.89 and 3.2.92 Annexures 6 and 9 respectively. Annexure 6 is an order passed by the Sr. Manager (P&A), Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited, Cachar Paper Mill. The order reads as follows :-

(2.) In 1962 the petitioner was appointed as Constable Fireman in Assam Police. In 1965 he was promoted to the post of Leading Fireman. In 1967 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Officer. In 1972 he was sent on deputation to Mizoram Police where he was absorbed and regularised. In 1973 the petitioner was promoted first as Station Officer, and thereafter as Fire Officer which is equivalent to D.S.P. in 1976. In 1981 the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Fire Fighting Officer in the Cachar Paper Mill, Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. On 23.1.82 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Fire Fighting Officer in the Corporation. On 28.8.85 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Security and Fire Fighting). He got the recommendation from the authority and the authority recognised his service in the following words :

(3.) In June, 1988 the petitioner fell ill and an application was filed before the Sr. Manager for grant of 11 days casual leave by petitioner. On 11.6.88 Sr. Medical Officer, District Tuberculosis Centre advised for 72 days rest as he was suffering from Pleurisy and thereafter for 80 days followed by 60 days vide Doctor's certificate. From 3.6.881 to 11.11.88, it is stated that the number of applications were filed to the Sr. Manager (P&A) but the petitioner received no reply. On 30.11.88, the Sr. Manager issued a letter to the petitioner that leave was not sanctioned as the applications were not in the proper form as such he is liable to be treated as unauthorised absent. Further, the petitioner was directed to report to police in connection with P.S. Case No. 151/88 Under Section 302/201/34 of IPC. The petitioner was asked to submit a reply within 15 days. On 14.12.88 the petitioner submitted his reply. On 5.1.89 at the order was issued by the Sr. Manager (P&A) that the petitioner was deemed to have lost his lien of appointment with the Corporation ;as per provision of conduct and Discipline Appeal Rules. An appeal was filed before the General Manager of the Corporation. On 21.1.89 Doctor declared the petitioner fit to resume his duties. On 17.7.90, 6.9.90 and 19.9.91 different reminders were filed to the General Manger, however there was no reply from his end. On 3.2.92 the Corporation directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter occupied by him.