State of U.P. and Others vs Hari Pal Singh and Another

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Vivek Tripathi, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record.

We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.07.1989 passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 124/F/III/85, allowing the claim petition while setting aside the termination order published in newspaper ''Varandoot'' on 02.09.1982 with a direction to the petitioners to consider leave applications of respondent No. 1 if available in their office and in case the applications were not available with the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 was to submit such applications for leave for passing orders within three months from the date of receipt of applications. It appears that respondent No. 1 was initially appointed in the office of Soil Conservation Officer, Gandak Command, Gorakhpur. His work and conduct were found to be satisfactory and he did not earn any adverse entry as nothing as such was communicated to him. It also appears that he was a chronic patient of peptic Ulcer and was thus admitted for treatment at Safder Jung Hospital, New Delhi, and later also, remained under treatment in the mental hospital, Shahdara, New Delhi and District Hospital, Buland Shahr. During the period of absence of respondent No. 1 his family members submitted as many as 25 applications for leave and were also given some assurance that respondent No. 1 would be taken in service as soon as he fully recovered from the ailments. On 25.03.1985, respondent No. 1 having fully recovered was declared fit for joining the service. Thus, he approached the Gandak Command Office, Gorakhpur, but he was not allowed to join. On the other hand, he was informed that his services stood terminated although he was not served with a copy of the termination order. He was also not subjected to any departmental proceeding before the order of termination was passed. Under these circumstances, respondent No. 1 challenged the termination order before Tribunal while contending that publication of termination order in a newspaper known as ''Varandoot'' with a very limited circulation was not enough and the news item had never come to his notice earlier and thus the entire exercise leading to passing of order terminating the services of respondent No. 1 was completed behind his back and as such stood vitiated.

Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that a news item was published in the newspaper on 09.02.1982. The news was given to inform that respondent No. 1 had left his office after moving a leave application on 07.02.1982 and thereafter he remained absent from duty and did not submit any further application for leave. In the news item it was clarified that if respondent No. 1 failed to join his duty within a week, his services would be liable for termination.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that from the publication of notice/news item in the newspaper, it would appear that the employer had only intended to terminate the services of respondent No. 1 in case he failed to join. But it would not be construed to be a termination order. That apart, as many as 25 applications for grant of leave had already been submitted by the family members of respondent No. 1 on the ground of serious nature of illness and that is why, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of respondent No. 1.

We have heard learned Counsel for parties and we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It would appear that till respondent No. 1 had become ill and got himself admitted for treatment in Safdar Jung Hospital, New Delhi, as well as in Mental Hospital, Shahdara, New Delhi and then in District Hospital, Buland Shahr, his work and conduct had been found to be satisfactory. Moreover when he was declared fit by the Hospital, he went to join his services at Gandak Command Office. Thus, it would appear from the background of this case that it was only a case of extreme hardship. As a result, the impugned order of termination of a government servant, who had worked continuously for 3 years without any blemish, passed on account of unauthorized absence, for which it is asserted that the necessary leave applications with medical report had already been submitted, without holding any inquiry and only by way of publishing a news item in a newspaper with a very limited circulation in the area of Gorakhpur, would not be sustainable as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, and further the State has also not earned any interim order during the pendency of the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.