1989 (3) TMI 378 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of discharge from service.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Legality of the transfer order and respondent's refusal to comply.
4. Application of Service Regulation No. 113.
5. Presumption of service of registered letters.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order of discharge from service:
The Supreme Court addressed the appeal against the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which quashed the respondent's discharge from service and directed reinstatement. The respondent, a Deputy Engineer with the Gujarat State Electricity Board, was discharged for not complying with a transfer order. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition and granting relief to the respondent.

2. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The High Court had quashed the discharge order on the grounds of violation of natural justice, as no opportunity was given to the respondent before discharging him. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent was warned and given an opportunity to explain his unauthorized absence, thus satisfying the requirements of natural justice.

3. Legality of the transfer order and respondent's refusal to comply:
The Supreme Court emphasized that transfer is an incident of service, and no government servant has a legal right to be posted at a particular place. The respondent's refusal to comply with the transfer order from Surat to Ukai, despite warnings, justified disciplinary action.

4. Application of Service Regulation No. 113:
Service Regulation No. 113 allows for summary discharge of an employee for continued unauthorized absence despite warnings. The Supreme Court found that the respondent's discharge was in accordance with this regulation, as he remained absent without sanctioned leave and ignored warnings.

5. Presumption of service of registered letters:
The Supreme Court held that there is a presumption of service for registered letters returned with a postal endorsement of refusal. The respondent failed to rebut this presumption. The Court concluded that the respondent was duly warned through the letter dated 18th April 1974, which met the requirements of Regulation No. 113.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the respondent's petition. The respondent's discharge from service was upheld as valid. The Court also directed that the amount already paid to the respondent under interim orders should not be recovered, considering the hardship it would cause.