Dr. S.K. Bansal vs Uoi & Ors. on 25 October, 2018
49. Expressing its strong disapproval at the failure, on the part of
the ONGC, and its learned counsel, to cite these decisions, i.e. the
decision in the petitioner's case and in D.C. Shukla (supra), before
him, the learned Single Judge went on to rely on the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in Shakuntala's Export House (P) Ltd
v. Secretary (Labour), MANU/DE/0541/2005 and MCD v. Begh Raj,
117 (2005) DLT 438, as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court
in D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, Lakshmi
Precision Screws Ltd v. Ram Bahagat, AIR 2002 SC 2914 and V.C.,
Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant, AIR 2006 SC 2304, to opine
that, even if a provision, deeming an employee to have abandoned
service, was to be treated as permissible in law, it could not be
applied, save and except in accordance with the principles of natural
justice, which required a proper inquiry to be held. The Show Cause
Notice which had been issued to Chuttani, it was opined, amounted
only to lip service with the principles of natural justice, as Chuttani
ought to have been afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to treating
him as having resigned from service. It was also observed, in
W.P.(C) 248/2003 Page 23 of 33
conjunction therewith, that the explanation furnished by Chuttani, for
his absence, had not been considered by the ONGC, and that no
reasons were forthcoming, in the order deeming Chuttani to have
resigned from service, supporting the said conclusion.