WP(C) 5330/2000 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D. BISWAS Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the Corporation. 2. The writ petitioner was working as Assistant Agronomist under the Hindus tan Fertilizer Corporation with all India transfer liability. He was transferred from Bihar and posted in the office of the Corporation at Nagaon. For unauthori zed absence his name has been struck-off from the roll by the order dated 6.9.19 94. The order reads as follows :- HINDUSTAN FERTILIZER CORPORTION LIMITED FERTILIZER PROMOTION & AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH DIVISION ASSAM REGION : GUWAHATI. Personnel Department No.FP&ARD/Gau/Pers/Leave/2480 Date : 6.9.94 MEMORANDUM Shri B.N. Prasad, Asstt. Agronomist E/No.930/ 0103 has been absenting fr om his duties without permission and information since 2.3.94. As per leave Rule No.6.1 - Absence without permission for more than 10 days wil l be treated as voluntary abandonment of his employment and his name will be str uck off from the rolls of the Corporation without any notice to the employee and the employee whose name is struck off the rolls for unauthorized absence may ho wever, represent to the Competent Authority giving reasons why he did not or cou ld not apply for leave etc. and if the Competent Authority is satisfied with the explanation, the said authority may grant the leave or take whatever decision i s called for on merit. Shri B.N. Prasad’s absence from 2.3.94 has been treated under the above quoted Rule and his name has been struck off from the roll of the Corporation w. e.f. 2.3.94. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (S. Rahman) Regional Chief Agronomist Guwahati 3. It would appear from the Rule referred to above that an employee whose n ame is struck off from the roll is entitled to submit a representation to the co mpetent authority giving reasons as to why he did not or could not apply for lea ve and the competent authority if satisfied has been authorized to grant the sai d leave and take whatever decision as may be deemed necessary on merit. 4. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner had submitted a repre sentation after his name was struck off from the roll of the Corporation. The sa id representation, as submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, has not yet been disposed of. Mr. Bhuyan therefore, submits that a direction may be given to the Corporation to d ispose of the representation on merit. Mr. Bhuyan further submitted that the pet itioner also sent a telegram requesting for extension of leave and, thereafter, forwarded a medical certificate in support of his contention made in the represe ntation. 5. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the Corporation, with reference to the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition, pointed out that the petition er has been indulging in remaining on unauthorized absence habitually and the re presentation in question has been submitted after lapse of one year from the dat e of the impugned order passed by the authority. 6. There may be good grounds for striking off the name of the petitioner fr om the roll and the adequacy of the same right at this moment cannot be consider ed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226. The Corporation be ing the employer has to take a decision on the representation at the first insta nce and pass appropriate orders either allowing or rejecting the representation. Since the rule vests with the petitioner a right to represent against his remov al from service, consequently the Corporation is also vested with the obligation to dispose of the representation in accordance with the provisions of law. In t he instant case, Corporation is to pass an order. Therefore, it would be apposit e to refer the matter back to the Corporation to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on merit in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Corporation, part icularly the Respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the p rovisions of law disposing of the representation dated 3.11.1995 submitted by th e writ petitioner. Needless to say that the Corporation shall endeavour to pass the order within a period of three months from the day when a copy of this order is served. If any amount is due to the petitioner on account of the services re ndered by him, the same shall be paid to him as and when asked for.