WP/34374/2011 of Md. Akthar, Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

Questioning the order dated 11.04.2008, terminating thepetitioner from service on the ground of absenteeism, the petitionerfiled the present writ petition on the ground that before passing theorder of termination, no notice and no enquiry was conducted and it isalso the ground that though the petitioner is working as contractConductor, the authorities shall have to follow the due process of lawwhile terminating the services of the contract employee.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reliefsought for in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated14.06.2010 passed in W.P. No.13219 of 2010. Therefore, the similarorder may be passed.

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for therespondents Corporation does not dispute the submission made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner.

Hence, following the order dated 14.06.2010 passed in W.P. No.13219 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed, at the admission stage, setting aside the termination order dated11.04.2008 passed by the 2[nd] respondent, Depot Manager, and therespondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service withcontinuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the petitioner is not entitled to backwages and attendantbenefits. Further, it is made clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the respondents fromconducting enquiry and passing appropriate orders, in accordancewith law.

With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shallbe no order as to costs.