Since, thereafter, on 29.12.1999, the Petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings, his services were terminated.
By its letter dated 3.8.1998, the Respondent Company informed the Petitioner that leave had number been granted and that he was being treated as absent from duty without leave, for which disciplinary proceedings were being companytemplated against him for unauthorised absence.
In the absence of any response from him, the Respondent Company once again wrote to the Petitioner on 14.8.1998, asking him to report for duty within ten days, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him, but the Petitioner failed to respond even to the said letter.
As such prayer was rejected, the Petitioner moved the Kerala High Court in its writ jurisdiction for a direction upon the authorities to accept his prayer for voluntary retirement and to drop the disciplinary action initiated against him.
The Kerala High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on the same day and by its Order dated 23.4.1999 directed the Union of India to dispose of the Petitioners representation within a reasonable time.
Without replying to the charges against him, the Petitioner sent yet another representation dated 20.11.1998 to the Respondent Company to accept his request for voluntary retirement.
The Petitioner, who has appeared in person, was employed as a Manager by the Respondent, Bokaro Steel Limited, which subsequently became a unit of Steel Authority of India SAIL from 20.2.1998.
Such prayer was rejected and the Petitioner was asked by letter dated 26.6.1998 to join his duties from 1.7.1998.
On the same date a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced and the Petitioner also applied on 7.4.1998 to avail the benefits of the Scheme.
The Petitioner was given ample opportunity to represent his case by the Respondent Union of India, which vide Order dated 11.10.1999, rejected the Petitioners representation.
The Petitioner claims to have applied for leave from 30.4.1998 to 31.5.1998 which was purported to have been sanctioned.
The Petitioner did number join his duties, as directed, but again applied for leave from 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1998.
The said Order was challenged by the Petitioner in the Kerala High Court by way of Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court by way of Writ Petition S No.
26659 of 2009, which was, however, rejected on the ground that the Kerala High Court had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
On 11.10.1998, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner for his unauthorised absence from duty.
However, without waiting for acceptance of his application seeking voluntary retirement, the Petitioner proceeded to the United States and applied for further leave from 1.6.1998 to 30.6.1998.
It was made clear that whatever action was taken would be subject to the order to be passed on the Petitioners representation.
Thus, the application for voluntary retirement made by the Petitioner therein, never really came into effect.
In support of his submissions, the Petitioner relied heavily on the decision of this Court in Tek Chand Vs.
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.
4057 of 2004.
