The High Court also recorded that respondent according to the appellants did number make any improvement in his performance and being irresponsible, due to absence in work, his services were terminated.
1 Ram Krishna was appointed as Nalkoop Chalak w.e.f.15.5.77.
He, therefore, approached the Tribunal and challenged both the orders of termination of his services.
As the respondent did number improve his work and again absented himself from duty without any application, his services were terminated by order dated 29.2.80.
Regarding the second termination order dated 29.2.80 the tribunal was of the view that it was number an order of termination simplicitor but it was stigmatic as it was passed on the ground that the respondent was an irresponsible employee and he was unauthorisedly absent.
01.12.79 on the post of Tube Well Operator was on a regular establishment.
It was companytended by the appellants before the tribunal that the appointment of the respondent was purely on temporary basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without numberice.
It was also companytended before the tribunal that the impugned order of termination did number cast any stigma and his services were number terminated by way of punishment but in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the appointment.
As he was found absent from his duty without obtaining leave a numberice dated 26.7.79 was given to him and then by an order dated 6.8.79 his services were terminated with effect from 26.7.79.
The High Court upheld the judgment and order dated 24.11.92 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and the review petition filed by the present appellants was also dismissed by the High Court.
81970/97.
The tribunal, however, did number grant the relief that he companytinued in service after 6.8.79.
The High Court was of the view that the appointment of respondent w.e.f.
The tribunal took the view that the termination order dated 6.8.79 was given back effect from 26.7.79 i.e., it was passed with retrospective effect, therefore, the order was bad as it was number permissible in law.
On this companynt the above termination order was set aside.
In the second order of termination dated 29.2.80 it was recorded that having made numberimprovement in work as being irresponsible the services of the respondent were number needed in the department and, therefore, terminated with immediate effect.
On these facts the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, 1993 3 J.T. 617 held that absence without leave is a misconduct and, therefore, as numberopportunity was given to the respondent, the termination was bad in law and accordingly the writ petition filed by the present appellants was dismissed.
N. Phukan, J. Delay companydoned.
This appointment was to take effect from 1.9.79 as respondent was working from that date as Tube Well Operator.
As numberinquiry was held before passing the order, the second order of termination was held to be bad in law by the tribunal and accordingly the tribunal allowed the petition filed by the respondent and both the termination orders dated 6.8.79 and 29.2.80 were quashed.
Leave granted.
Two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.05.97 of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition C No.
7150/93 as also against the order dated 27.02.98 in review petition in CMA No.
Respondent filed a representation against the above order before the Authority and on an assurance given by the respondent that he would number companymit any mistake in future he was given a fresh appointment on 1.9.79 for three months and again on 18.12.79 for three months.
But as stated earlier, the Tribunal had number granted the relief that he companytinued in service even after 6.8.79.
Respondent No.
The respondent had accepted his fresh appointment and, therefore, had to be treated as a fresh appointee.
That was a case of termination of services on the basis of standing orders in an industrial establishment.
