213wp3454.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3454 of 2010 (Sunil P. Bhagwat .vs. W.C.L. and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and M.L.Tahaliyani, JJ. Date : 21/03/2011. Heard Mr.A.S.Manohar, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.S.C.Mehadia, Adv. for the respondents. This petition is directed against the communication dt. 8.10.2009 issued by the Deputy Chief Personal Manager, Western Coal Fields Ltd. whereby the petitioner is informed that his application for reinstatement in service cannot be considered favourably since termination of the petitioner was on the basis of unauthorized absence for a long time. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court vide judgment and order dt. 30.9.2003. However, the Appellate Court vide judgment and order dt. 19.6.2009 set aside the order of conviction 213wp3454.10.odt 2 . passed by the trial Court and acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that since the petitioner was behind the bars, he could not attend his job. The respondent did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that absentism was beyond the control of the petitioner and since the petitioner is now acquitted of the criminal charges and the principles of natural justice is not followed, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Mr.S.C.Mehadia, Adv. for the Western Coal Fields Ltd. has submitted that the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are incorrect. It is further submitted that in spite of various notices issued to the petitioner, the petitioner neither personally nor through his representative attended the enquiry or the Office and the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly for a long time. Therefore, the respondent, after conducting enquiry, terminated the services of the petitioner, which is just and proper. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused the impugned order. In the instant 213wp3454.10.odt 3 . case, on the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that the petitioner was convicted by the trial Court on 30.9.2003 for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the said conviction came to be set aside by Appellate Court on 19.6.2009. It is in these circumstances, it is obvious that, from 30.9.2003 till 19.6.2009, the petitioner was behind the bars. It is evident that, the petitioner, in these circumstances, could not remain present at the time of enquiry and since he was behind the bars, it was physically beyond his capacity to present himself before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, it will be appropriate for the respondent to reconsider the issue afresh by following the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we set aside the communication dt. 8.10.2009 and direct the respondent to re-consider the issue by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision according to law and procedure applicable in this regard, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention that the order of termination dated 4th/5th February, 2005 shall not come in the way of re-consideration of the issue by the respondent. 213wp3454.10.odt 4 . With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE jais