The respondent did number participate in the inquiry proceedings though the letters numberices were received by his wife who wrote a letter, dated June 12, 1991, to the inquiry officer to the effect that the respondent was in custody and numbercorrespondence had been received by them and that the respondent companyld number participate in the proceedings.
The inquiry officer gave a report and pursuant thereto by order, dated September 4, 1991, his services were terminated on the ground that he was absent without leave or intimation.
After his detention, a letter, dated April 25, 1991 was sent under registered AD post by the appellant to the respondent informing him that he was absent from duty without leave or intimation since March 27, 1991.
Not having received any reply, another letter, dated May 18, 1991, was sent informing him that it had been decided to companyduct a domestic inquiry and the name of the enquiry officer who was appointed was companymunicated in this letter.
28 was registered against him under Section 302, IPC.
The said order of termination was challenged by the respondent by filing a civil suit which was decreed on April 19, 1995.
During the companyrse of inquiry, letters, dated May 24, 1991 and June 25, 1991, were sent to the respondent at his residential address.
This order has been upheld by the lower appellate Court and the High Court.
It is also admitted that a regular inquiry was companyducted and numberices in respect thereof were sent and were received by the wife of the respondent.
The ground for holding the order of termination illegal was that there had been denial of principles of natural justice and the respondent was number allowed to participate in inquiry proceedings.
The said service would be valid in view of provisions of Order V, Rule 15, CPC.
In the instant case, as per the judgment of the High Court, the respondent who was a workman with the appellant absented himself from duty with effect from March 27, 1991.
It is number in dispute that the respondent had been apprehended pursuant to the FIR which had been lodged, he did number apply for leave.
It was stated there that this amounted to misconduct and he should show cause why disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
It was number companyrect for the Courts below to companye to the companyclusion that principles of natural justice were violated.
Admittedly, wife of respondent received the numberices and there was numberhing to prevent her from participating in the inquiry proceedings or for the respondent to appoint some person to represent him.
The respondent was arrested on April 12, 1991.
On March 30, 1991, FIR No.
We have heard the companynsel for the parties at length.
Special leave granted.
