Allahabad High Court Upholds Clerk’s Termination Order
The Allahabad High Court has held that the postal certificate is not a reliable means of dispatching the medical certificates by the employee, particularly when none of them have been received by the department. The High Court made such an observation while upholding the termination order passed against a Clerk-cum-Typist, citing abandonment on his part.
The Petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to join as Clerk-cum-Typist.
The Single Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh said, “As such the postal certificate is not a reliable means of dispatching the medical certificate particularly when none of them have been received by the department.”
“The present case is fit in the terminology of “abandonment” and the same cannot be treated as termination”, it added.
Advocate Sampurnanand Shukla represented the Petitioner, while Advocate P K Sinha represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in 1982 and thereafter his services were confirmed in 1983. The petitioner fell ill in the month of October, 1990, and he sent several letters through an Under Postal Certificate (not registered) to the opposite party informing him that he was suffering from illness, therefore, he should be granted leave. The petitioner remained absent as he was ill, and he also submitted the fitness certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer.
The petitioner was given a representation for joining his service in 2001. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed the present petition. Thereafter, by way of amendment, the impugned termination order was challenged.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that Clauses 26 and 27 of the Standing Orders would not be applicable in the present case for the reason that management had resorted the provisions of Clause 19 (ii) of the Standing Orders, as the said provision applies to the workmen. The petitioner is a workman as per Clause 3 of the Standing Orders, which comprises six categories of workmen. Clause-19(ii) of the Standing Orders does not indicate that it will be applicable to workmen pertaining to any category out of the six categories of Clause-3. It was also noticed that the management had resorted to the provisions of Clause 19 (ii) of the Standing Orders, and a minimum opportunity was provided to the petitioner by issuing a show cause notice to him.
Referring to the judgment in National Engineering Industries Limited, Jaipur Vs. Hanuman (1968), the Bench noted, “Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Engineering Industries Limited, Jaipur (supra) has held that out of the two procedures available to the management, one can be resorted to by it to take action against the employee.
Reference was also made to the judgment in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs. Labour Court, U.P. at Meerut and others, (1999) wherein it has been held that the cases of ‘abandonment’ are different from the cases of ‘termination of service’ for the reason that in the matter of abandonment it is the sweet will of employee, whereas in case of termination, it is the will of the employer which is imposed on the employee. “The present case is fit in the terminology of “abandonment” and the same cannot be treated as termination”, it added.
In view of the observation made in Hindustan Paper Corporation (supra) that before taking action, opportunity should be given to the employee to show cause against the action proposed, the Bench said, “As such, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’b1e Supreme Court in the present case, at least a notice has to be given to the employee towards compliance of the principles of natural justice though no regular disciplinary enquiry may be required even if the same is provided in the service rules, which procedure has been adopted and complied with in the present case.”
The Petitioner had placed reliance upon various case laws tried to justify that petitioner had sent various representations made through Under Postal Certificate (not registered) to espouse his cause to the competent authority for his absence from duty. “The proof of receipt of Under Postal Certificate is a document which cannot be relied upon and no reliance can be paced on such document as it has no evidentiary value as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994)…”, the Bench held while also adding, “As such the postal certificate is not a reliable means of dispatching the medical certificate particularly when none of them have been received by the department.”
The Bench also held that the writ petition was highly belated and suffered from laches as it was filed in 2001, whereas the impugned termination order was passed in the year 1991. Thus, finding no good ground to interfere with the impugned order, the Bench dismissed the same. “The petitioner was sleeping over the matter for over ten years, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches also”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Rajendra Prasad Tripathi v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Through Chairman (Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC-LKO:30708)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sampurnanand Shukla, Abhinav Nath Tripathi, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anurag Tyagi, D.K.Srivastava, S.K. Tripathi, Subodh Kumar Verma, Vishal Singh
Respondent: Advocate P K Sinha
