Shri Brij Bhushan vs Central Electronics Ltd.Thru Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11157 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shri Brij Bhushan vs Central Electronics Ltd.Thru Chief ... on 6 October, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176439
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 15561 of 2008   
 
   Shri Brij Bhushan    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Central Electronics Ltd.Thru Chief Manager Hrd    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Bimal Prasad, Punit Kumar Upadhyay   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A. Chaudhary, S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.      

1. This case is of the year 2008. The petitioner has joined with respondent - Central Electronics Ltd., a Public Enterprise in the year 1989.

2. It is his further case that with prior permission of appropriate authority of the respondent-company, he was granted leave to go Canada from 09.03.2004 to 12.04.2004, however, admittedly, he remained there for extended period.

3. It is his further case that by an email dated 14.04.2004, he made a request for extension of leave (copy of same is not annexed). From records, it appears that a request dated 14.04.2004 for extension of leave till 12.07.2004 was rejected by respondents through an E-mail dated 21.04.2004, however, despite that petitioner did not join, therefore, after a period of six weeks, a show cause notice dated 08.06.2004 was issued that petitioner has not resumed his duties despite his leave extension application was rejected.

4. In the show cause notice, a reference was given of a condition of appointment which is quoted below :-

"If an executive remains absent without any intimation, leave or authorisation for a period exceeding 8 days or if any executive remains absent beyond this period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended and if such absence exceeds 8 days, the company shall presume that the executive has left the services of the company on his own accord and accordingly his name stands struck off from the rolls of the company w.e.f the date of his unauthorized absence. It shall not be obligatory for the company to give notice to the employee to that effect."

5. A reply to show cause notice was submitted by petitioner by a Fax dated 20.06.2004 that he was under a medical treatment. A medical certificate by a Doctor at Torronto, Canada dated 10.06.2004 was also placed on record that petitioner was substantially disabled on basis of medical problem that prevents him from returning to his native country and his recovery was in the range of several months.

6. Concerned respondents has considered the aforesaid reply and by impugned order dated 26.04.2004 found the reply unsatisfactory and, therefore, in terms of referred Clause 2-b of his appointment letter, his services were terminated.

7. In impugned order, there is a reference of a reply dated 16.06.2004, however, same is not on record, whereas petitioner has annexed other communications along with this writ petition. The referred condition of appointment is not in dispute.

8. Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner has referred judgments of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Suresh Chandra Pathak and another, 2017 (6) ALJ 194, Jeewan Prasad Misra vs. Labour Court-II, UP, Kanpur, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 1167 as well as judgments of Supreme Court in L. Robert DSouza vs. Executive Engineer, Southern Railways and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 645, D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna and others, (2015) 15 SCC 151 that petitioner could have dismissed from service only through a disciplinary proceedings in terms of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 whereas in the present case, no disciplinary proceedings was initiated and only on basis of show cause notice and its reply, order of termination was passed, which was against the principles of natural justice.

9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has also referred paragraph 20 of counter affidavit filed by concerned respondents.

10. Sri S.S. Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri A. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned that petitioner was admittedly remained outside India beyond sanctioned leave. The petitioner has not come up with case of any specific medical ailment. Principles of natural justice were completely followed.

11. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

12. It is an admitted case of petitioner that he remained at Canada beyond sanctioned leave of 28 days as well as that his application for extension of sanctioned leave was rejected by a email dated 21.04.2004 which was never challenged.

13. Admittedly, when the petitioner did not return from foreign country and has failed to join service, a show cause notice was issued after a period of six weeks though reply referred in impugned order is not on record. The Court takes note of other communications and best case for petitioner could be that he was medically unfit to travel and for that, he has placed on reliance on medical certificate issued by Doctor at Torronto, Canada.

14. The medical certificate does not indicate any specific ailment that could take months for recovery, therefore, that document cannot be relied upon, as such, there was no genuine reason with petitioner to stay beyond his sanctioned leave of 28 days.

15. An argument of learned counsel for petitioner that principles of natural justice were not followed and petitioner was terminated without due process of inquiry and for that, petitioner has placed reliance on above referred judgments is also considered.

16. Facts of present case are of petitioner's unauthorized leave which he has not denied. It is also not denied that petitioner has submitted a reply to show cause notice as well as condition mentioned in appointment letter is also not disputed that in case of unauthorized absent of more than 8 days, it could be considered to be case of abandonment of service whereas in present case, it was six to seven weeks.

17. Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Om Prakash, 2024 INSC 870 wherein on basis of applicable regulations, on a ground of abandonment of service, termination was upheld. For reference, paragraph 11 and 12 of it are quoted below :-

"11. Relief was granted to the respondent by the High Court on the ground that the termination order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity or conducting an inquiry into the charge of absence from duty. But in granting such relief, the Court overlooked that it was a case of the respondent abandoning his services without informing his employer about his whereabouts. Subsequently, it came to light that he joined the FCI on 09.05.1997.

12. Such conduct of the respondent could not have been condoned by the employer and therefore, in our assessment, treating the respondent to have abandoned his service and taking appropriate action against him, in terms of the LIC Staff Regulation, cannot be faulted. It is also necessary for us to say that as the delinquent was guilty of suppression of the fact of his employment with the FCI, he was disentitled to equitable relief from the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."

18. In present case also, it is a case of abandonment of service as admittedly petitioner remained on unauthorized leave. Explanation was not found satisfactory and in such circumstances, when petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit reply to show cause notice and since there was a violation of condition of appointment letter, no detail inquiry was warranted. It is not a case of petitioner that he was prejudiced since he has submitted his explanation available to him.

19. Court also takes note that impugned order was passed on 26.04.2005 whereas this writ petition was filed on 09.03.2008 i.e. after about 3 years and writ petition is absolutely silent on any reasonable explanation for such delay. So far as judgments provided by learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, all judgments are distinguishable on facts of present case. 20. In view of above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

October 6, 2025

N. Sinha