ORDER B.L. Loomba, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant (Trainee) in the U.P. Electronic Corporation Ltd. (U.P. Co.) and his services were later transferred to the subsidary Co., namely, UPTRON Digital System Ltd. - U.P. Government Co. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the UPTRON with effect from 1-7-1984. He was transferred to the Regional Office of the Company at Delhi by order dated 11-10-1988. The petitioner, however, did not comply with order of transfer and, as per his case, he did not report at.Delhi because of his illness, he proceeded on leave and went on seeking extention of leave and according to his own saying it was not known to him whether all the leave applications submitted by him were granted or rejected (paragraph 2 of the writ petition). The Company required him to appear before the then Medical Officer, Sitapur for medical examination and Chief Medical Officer counter-singed the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner and informed the Company accordingly, vide letter dated 28-11-1988, Annexure 11. In January, 1989 he submitted two application dated 13-1-1989 and 24-1-1989 (Annexures 7 and 8) seeking extension of leave. Therein it was stated that the medical certificates shall be submitted very soon. Earlier, he had submitted a certificate of a private doctor of Sitapur dated 25-12-1988 wherein it was certified that the petitioner could now resume his normal duties but because of his weakness he was unable to do hard work and could join for light work only. There are no averments in the writ petition that he submitted the medical certificates as referred to in the leave applications dated 13-1-1989 and 24-1-1989. 2. It appears that the Personnel Manager of the Company wrote letters dated 24-10-1988, 19-11-1988, 28-12-1988 and 19-1-1989 (Annexures G-12 to G-16) of the counter affidavit of Ambrish Sharma stating that the petitioner in compliance with the transfer order should report at Regional officer at Delhi, he was remaining absent without obtaining prior sanction of leave, he was being treated as absent from duty from 12-10-1988 at his own risk and responsibility and if he does not comply with the orders it will be presumed that he was no longer interested in working in the Organization and his name will be struck off from the rolls of the Company. In the rejoinder affidavit only thing stated is that the petitioner had been on leave throughout, he proceeded to join at Delhi in the month of June, 1989. 3. Eventually, an order dated 28-4-1989 was passed by Executive Director (Technical) of the Company (Annexure 1 to the Writ petition) stating that the petitioner despite instructions contained in the letters dated 24-10-1988, 19-11-1988, 28-12-1988 and 15-3-1989 did not resume his duties in the Regional office at Delhi, he was absenting unauthorizedly without any sanvtion of leave since long and it was as such inferred that he was no longer interested to work in the Organization and had voluntarily abandoned his employment. It was added that his name had been struck off from the Company's roll with immediate effect and he is deemed to have abandoned his employment and he should approach the Accounts Department of the Regional Office at Delhi for full and final settlement of his accounts in accordance with the said procedure. 4. The impugned order as stated above was passed on 28-4-89. The present writ petition to challenge the legality of the impugned order was filed during the summer vacations, on 26-5-89. It was admitted by the Division Bench on the same day. Notice was directed to be issued to the company and as an interim measure it was provided that : "Meanwhile the operation of the order of termination date 28-4-89 contained in Annexure-1 of writ petition shall remain stayed till the next day of listing. List in August, 1989." 5. The challenge is mainly raised on the ground that the impugned order was passed as an act of victimisation, it is totally arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Another ground set up is that the Executive Director of the Uptron Limited which is subsidiary of the U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd. was not competent to terminate the petitioner's services, he being a permanent employee of the U.P. Electronics Corporation. 6. The factual allegations made in the writ petition are that the employees of the company were agitated for non-implementation of the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission and they decided to form association and at the elections, petitioner was elected as Vice-President and Ramesh Chandra and Harish Chandra and V.K. Sinha were elected President, General Secretary and Joint Secretary of the association, respectively. As an act of victimisation the company management transferred Ramesh Chandra to Madras, Harish Chandra to Sahibabad, V.K. Singh to Jaunpur while the petitioner was transferred to Delhi. Ramesh Chandra filed Writ Petition No. 1183 of 88 challenging the legality of the order of transfer. This writ petition was dismissed. Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this court is still pending before the Supreme Court and meanwhile Ramesh Chandra was directed to join at Madras by the Supreme Court and in compliance of the direction 'Ramesh Chandra joined at Madras. Harish Chandra also filed writ petition but he eventually joined at Sahibabad and his writ petition became infructuous. The petitioner in this context stated that he would also had joined at Delhi but for his illness. 7. On behalf of the respondents appearance was put in on 2-6-89 and application seeking vacation of the ex parte interim stay order was moved supported by a short counter-affidavit. It is this application which is being disposed of by the instant order. In the counter-affidavit it was denied that the impugned order is one for termination of the petitioner's services. It has been pleaded that this order has been passed in accordance with Rule 12(g) of the U.P. Electronics Corporation Disciplinary Rules which provides that if any employee over-stays on leave without approval or absents himself without permission for more than seven days, his absence will be treated as abandonment of employment voluntarily. On the factual aspect it has been stated that the petitioner did not comply with the order of transfer even though he had been posted at Lucknow for the last 10 years. He did not appear before a doctor of the company's choice to enable the company management to be satisfied about the genuineness underlying the plea of illness of the petitioner. It is also stated that meanwhile the petitioner continued to exert-streneous pressure on the management for withdrawing the transfer order and further that after January, 1989 no medical certificates were submitted in support of the applications for extension of leave. It is also stated that meanwhile the petitioner continued to exert-streneous pressure on the management for withdrawing the transfer order and further that after January, 1989 no medical certificates were submitted in support of the applications for extension of leave. On the question of competence of the officer who passed the impugned order it has been stated that digital system was merged with Uptron India Limited and its employees became the employees of Uptron India, vide notification under Section 390 of the Company's Act as per gazette notification (annexure-C2 of the counter- affidavit) and as such the Executive Director (Technical) of the Upton India was fully competent in law to pass the impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on a decision of Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani, (1989) 2 SCC 602 : (1989 Lab IC 1374) in support of the contention that a Government servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other and if he remains absent from duty without leave or over stays the period of sanctioned leave and fails to join his duties even after a warning, his services are liable to be terminated by an order of discharge. In that case the employee (Technical Assistant of the Electricity Board) avoided complying with the order of transfer, his prayer for postponing his transfer was rejected and he was directed to join his duties.He was informed that on his failure to do so disciplinary action would be taken against him. By subsequent letter he was reminded that his unauthorised absence was in breach of Service Regulation 113 and he was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him. In spite of these letters the employee failed to join his duties. Eventually, the Chief Engineer discharged the employee from service in accordance with Regulation 113. Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition of the employee and quashed the order of termination of the finding that the order of discharge was issued in violation of basic principles of natural justice as no opportunity was afforded to him before discharging him from service under Regulation 133. The Hon'ble supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and dismissed the writ petition. The Hon'ble supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and dismissed the writ petition. The employee had in the meantime been paid his salary amounting to more than rupees one lac under the interim order of the court. It was observed that since the order of discharge is held to be valid, the amount paid is liable to he recovered but in the totality of facts and circumstances and the hardship which would be caused to the employee, it was directed that the amount already paid be not recovered from him. The law laid down was that where a Government servant on transferable post fails to comply with the order of transfer he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules. Regulation 113, in pursuance of which the order of discharge was passed by the Chief Engineer is in the following terms : "113. The continued absence from duty or over stay, in spite of warning, to return to duty shall render the employee liable to summarily discharge from service without the necessity of proceedings under the Gujarat Electricity Board, Conduct, Discipline and appeal Procedure." 8. The two conditions which require to be satisfied in terms of Regulation 113 are that the employee must be found absent from duty without leave or over staying the period of sanctioned leave and secondly he fails to join his duty even after warning. The object and purpose of giving warning is to remind the delinquent employee that if he continues to be absent from duty he would be liable to action under Regulation 113 and to affording him the opportunity to make amendments by joining his duty. If even thereafter he fails to join duty his services are liable to be terminated by an order of discharge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon consideration of the facts came to the conclusion that the letters issued to the employee constituted sufficient, valid ground for taking action under the said regulation. Before order of discharge he was duly warned as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He acted in a irresponsible manner in not complying with the order of transfer which led to his discharge from service in accordance with the regulation. 9. Before order of discharge he was duly warned as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He acted in a irresponsible manner in not complying with the order of transfer which led to his discharge from service in accordance with the regulation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the present case also the petitioner by means of several letters was required to join at the place of transfer; he however, avoided to comply with the order of transfer and without obtaining any order for sanction of the leave he absented from duty and went on making applications for extension of leave and from January, 1989 he failed even to support the applications with medical certificates. He promised to submit the same later but did not do so at any time. In these facts his absence from duty was clearly unauthorised. More than one letter was issued to him remanding him that he was remaining absent without obtaining prior sanction of leave and he was being treated absent from duty from 12-10-88 at his own risk and responsibility and it would be presumed that he was not interested in working in the organisation. These letters have been referred to in paragraph 2 of this order. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argued that the validity of Rule 12(g) under which the impugned order is said to have been passed has been challenged by the petitioner by way of amendment in the writ petition and that the petitioner could not join at Delhi because of his illness and the action taken is clearly illegal being an act of vindictiveness and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that this is not a case of wilful absence and in any case an enquiry ought to have been made before passing the order which in effect is one of termination of the service of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the petitioner's own letter dated 20-10-89 (Annexure-C21) to the supplementary affidavit dated 6-11-89. Reply to this supplementary-affidavit could not be filed by the petitioner. However, the genuineness of this letter has not been challenged on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the petitioner's own letter dated 20-10-89 (Annexure-C21) to the supplementary affidavit dated 6-11-89. Reply to this supplementary-affidavit could not be filed by the petitioner. However, the genuineness of this letter has not been challenged on behalf of the petitioner. As would appear from this letter, even after obtaining the interim stay order the petitioner did not join at Delhi under the excuse and plea that he was financially crippled and is not in a position to sustain the heavy daily expenditure of costly city like Delhi and would resume duty only after the payment of entire arrears for his salary. Learned counsel for the respondent has, in this connection, argued and rightly so that while the petitioner could claim his arrears and have approached this court for specific direction in this behalf, he had no justification, whatsover, to remain absent from duty. 11. For the purpose of disposal of this application seeking vacation of the interim stay order, it is not necessary to go into the details and record findings as to the merit underlying the various points arising in this case. It may suffice to say that prima facie what appears is that the petitioner did not comply with the order of transfer even after the dismissal of the writ Petition No. 1183 of 88 filed by Ramesh Chandra on 30-8-88, Annexure-C4 to the short counter-affidavit referred to above. He remained absent without obtaining sanction of the leave applied for and from January, 1989 onwards he does not appear to have supported his medical leave applications with requisite medical certificates. He was given warning by means of four letters that his absence from duty was unauthorised and it would be deemed that he was not interested in working in the organisation. Despite that he failed to join at the place of his transfer. In the context of these facts and keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board's case, (1989 Lab IC 1374) (supra), it cannot be said at this stage that the impugned order is prima facie bad in law. Yet another aspect Normally speaking there would be no stay of an order of termination because in the event of the success in the challenge to the order of termination, the aggrieved person would be able to recover the arrears of salary etc. Yet another aspect Normally speaking there would be no stay of an order of termination because in the event of the success in the challenge to the order of termination, the aggrieved person would be able to recover the arrears of salary etc. On the other hand if the challenge fails the employer would suffer irreparable loss. The petitioner, it may seem, would be entitled to get entire salary in the even of his success in the writ petition but if his writ petition fails he would be getting unmerited advantage of salary etc. which it may be difficult to get refunded. 12. In the totality of facts and circumstances, this, in my view, is not a fit case for continuance of the stay order. The respondent's application seeking vacation of the interim stay order is allowed and the stay order granted in favour of the petitioner is discharged.