the validity of which is stated number to have so far been pronounced upon by this Court in the companytext of a Public Sector Corporation.
On 6.6.1988 the Senior Manager of the appellant received a message from the Police to direct the first respondent to report to the police station.
That order was to the effect that the first respondent herein must be deemed to have lost his Lien on his appointment with the Corporation Mill.
Again in the application dated 13.9.1988.
When the Special Leave Petition came up for admission this Court while issuing numberice passed an order in the following terms In the light of the sub clause E of Clasue VI of Rule 23.
was found in the house of the first respondent.
On 3.6.1988.
On 27.5.1988.
The first respondent has successfully challenged the said order of the appellant before the High Court of Guwahati and thus.
Again the police requested to intimate the whereabouts of the first respondent.
288 of 1992 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On 7.6.1988 the Senior Manager informed the police that the first respondent has sent an application for Earned Leave.
the appellant is before us.
The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench.
On may 26.
on appeal by the appellant Corporation, agreeing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the first respondent set aside the order of the appellant Corporation dated 5.1.1989 and directed re instatement of first respondent with 50 back wages.
However.
The appellant Corporation on January 5, 1989 passed an order invoking Rule 23 vi E of the Hindustan Paper Corporation Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules hereinafter called the Rules .
14.7.88.
On l4,6.1988 the appellant informed the police that the whereabouts of the first respondent number known.
a numberice shall be issued to the respondents.
On the next day.
the first respondent applied casual leave.
the first respondent after the expiry of casual leave sent an application for Earned Leave for 11 days giving the reason personal affair and mentioning his leave address as U S PWD Dispur, Gauhati.
The appellant aggrieved by the said order moved the Guwahati High Court by filing Civil Rule No.
VENKATASWAMI.
the permanent address of the first respondent as available in the official record.
the appellant sent series of leave applications dated 21.6.88.
l3.9.88.
28.8.88.
13.9.88.
29.9.88.
He was.
1988 the body of one shanti Rani Chakrabarty, sister in law of the first respondent.
an FIR was lodged aginst the first respondent and others under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC by Karim Ganj Police.
was supplied to the police.
Thereafter.
J. Leave granted.
Later on, in the application for leave dated 13.8.1988, the reason given was suffering from heart disease.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
The first respondent entered the services of the appellant as a Fire Fighting Officer and was eventually promoted on 28.8.1985 as Assistant Manager Security Fire fighting .
