R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of the present petition, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19. 8. 1987 contained in Annexure-IX to the writ petition, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Prayers for a writ mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service with effect from 17. 4. 1986 and for the payment of salary admissible to Assistant Field Supervisor have also been made. ( 3 ) TAX matrix of the case is that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Field Supervisor alongwith 400 candidates vide order dated 1. 4. 1986, he was directed to undergo the training for a period of two months. On the strength of the said order, petitioner went for training in the office of the Co- operative Dairy Training Institute, Lucknow. On 21. 4. 1986 he has successfully completed his training. Thereafter, he was again sent for training for 62 days to Barabanki Dugdh Sangh and same was also completed by him successfully. After completion of the said training petitioner was posted at Unnao. It was on 26. 7. 1986, that petitioner reported for duty at Unnao Dugdh Sangh. It was on 2. 10. 1986 that an application for leave was made by him. The leave was granted for two days i. e. , 3rd and 4th October, 1986. It has been stated that the petitioner thereafter fell seriously ill and was advised bed rest for 30 days, by the doctor, Petitioner made an application for leave on medical ground which was supported by medical certificate. It was asserted that the petitioner thereafter was advised complete rest for four months; but inspite of medical treatment, he did not recover from the ailment and was advised by V. P. Misra Medical Officer Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad to take rest till he was cured. While petitioner was seriously ill, he received a letter dated 11. 11. 1986 calling upon him to join duty on 15. 11. 1986. On receipt of the said letter, petitioner sent an application for leave on medical ground for a period of four months. While petitioner was seriously ill, he received a letter dated 11. 11. 1986 calling upon him to join duty on 15. 11. 1986. On receipt of the said letter, petitioner sent an application for leave on medical ground for a period of four months. The said application was sent by registered post, which was returned by the post office with an endorsement "refused to accept". It is stated that the petitioner suffered from knocks abdomen and was advised rest. Consequently, be had to make another application for leave on medical ground. Instead of allowing or rejecting the application for leave, the impugned order of termination dated 19. 8. 1987 was passed in exercise of power under Regulation 85 (ii) (b) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner sent his representation praying that the order of termination be recalled and he may be permitted to join the service. The authority concerned did not pay heed to the said representation, therefore, reminders and notices were sent, but in vain. Consequently, petitioner had not approach this Court and file the present writ petition for the above mentioned reliefs. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit it has been asserted that the impugned order of termination has been passed in terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner. It has been asserted that the petitioner absented from duty without leave and has not completed two years training as required by the conditions 4 and 9 of the order of appointment and that his whereabouts were not known, therefore, respondents were left with no option but to pass the impugned order of termination. ( 5 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefuly. ( 6 ) THE order of termination dated 19. 8. 1987 reads as under: "the services of Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava S/o Sri G. P. Srivastava, Asstt. Field Supervisor who has nut completed training successfully having been absent from duties in unauthorised manner since 6. 10. 1986, are hereby terminated with immediate effect under para 4 of his appointment order under Clause 85 (ii) (b) of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. Field Supervisor who has nut completed training successfully having been absent from duties in unauthorised manner since 6. 10. 1986, are hereby terminated with immediate effect under para 4 of his appointment order under Clause 85 (ii) (b) of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. " ( 7 ) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is revealed that the same was passed on two grounds i. e. , (i) that the petitioner has not completed the training, and (ii) that he has absented and his whereabouts were not known. ( 8 ) THE order of termination is purported to have been passed in exercise of power under Regulation 85 (ii) (b) of the Regulations. ( 9 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order of termination are factually incorrect and non-existent, inasmuch as the petitioner as and when was called upon to undergo the training, he went for training and completed the same successfully. He has referred to the training undergone by him, when he was sent vide order passed on 21. 4. 1986. Therefore, he took training for two months and completed the same successfully. On 20. 6. 1986 he was again called upon to undergo training for another 62 days and was sent to Barabanki Dugdh Centre and the said training was also completed by him success fully, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not completed the training successfully. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not completed two years training in terms of Clause 4 and 9 of the appointment letter dated 1. 4. 1986. The said clauses are reproduced below: "4. He shall be on Institution/on-the Job-training for two years from the date of joining. The period of training can be extended by one year at the discretion of the management. He shall undergo such training courses as may be required from time to time, in any of the training centers run by NDDB/pcdf/ any other Institution. In case he does not complete any such training successfully his services without prejudice to other conditions mentioned herein, shall be liable to termination without giving any notice. " "9. He shall undergo such training courses as may be required from time to time, in any of the training centers run by NDDB/pcdf/ any other Institution. In case he does not complete any such training successfully his services without prejudice to other conditions mentioned herein, shall be liable to termination without giving any notice. " "9. After successful completion of Institution/on-the-job-training as mentioned in para 4 above, he shall be on probation for a period of one year during which he will be expected to attain the standard required by the Federation/milk Union as to his work and conduct, failing which his probation period may be extended for another one year, at the sole discretion of the management. " ( 11 ) IT may be noted that the petitioner was appointed on 1. 4. 1986 and his services have been terminated on 39. 8. 1987, the total length of his service is about one year and four months only, therefore, there was no question of completion of two years training. There is no material on the record to show that the petitioner has ever refused to go for training, if he was called upon to go for the same. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the contrary is, therefore, not acceptable to me. ( 12 ) SO far absence of petitioner from duty is concerned he was granted leave for two days i. e. , 3rd and 4th October, 1986 for going to Allahabad. As the petitioner fell ill and suffered from type hold, he was advised rest by the Doctor for 30 days. Petitioner applied for leave with the medical certificate from 6. 10. 1986 to 6. 11. 1986. Thereafter ailment persisted and the petitioner continued under the medical treatment as it is apparent from the facts stated in the writ petition. As and when he was advised by the Doctor he used to make an application for leave on medical ground, which used to be supported by the medical certificate up to September, 1987. In the meanwhile the order of termination dated 19. 8. 1987 was passed. There is nothing on record to show that the applications filed by the petitioner on medical ground were rejected, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner absented from duty un-authorisedly. In the meanwhile the order of termination dated 19. 8. 1987 was passed. There is nothing on record to show that the applications filed by the petitioner on medical ground were rejected, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner absented from duty un-authorisedly. ( 13 ) THE impugned order of termination is alleged to have been passed in exercise of power under Regulation 85 (ii) (b) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 197s, which reads as under: "85. (ii) (b) Where an employee has absconded and his where about are not known to the society for more than three months. " ( 14 ) THE power under the said clause can be exercised when an employee has absconded from duty and his where about were not known to the society for more than three months. In the present case, the petitioner has never absconded from the duly and his where about were always known to the society. The petitioner has been sending his applications for leave except one, others have been accepted by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 itself has sent letter dated 11. 11. 1986 calling upon the petitioner to attend his duties with effect from 15. 11. 1986. On receipt of the said notice/letter petitioner submitted his application for leave on medical ground to the respondent No. 1. The said application was entertained, but no order either allowing or rejecting was passed. Petitioner was thus in touch with the respondent No. 1 and it had full knowledge of where about of petitioner. Therefore, the order of termination cannot be said to be justified under Regulation 8s (ii) (b) of the Regulation. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents further urged that the petitioner was not entitled to the salary for the period he did not attend to his duties even if the order of termination is set aside by this Court, as he did not attend his duties, on the principle of no work no pay. Clause (ii) of Regulation 73 of the said Regulations read as under: "73. Clause (ii) of Regulation 73 of the said Regulations read as under: "73. (ii) An employee, who absents from his duty without leave or over stay beyond his control, for which he must tender his satisfactory explanation, shall not be entitled to draw any pay and allowances for the period of such absence or over stay and shall further be liable to such disciplinary action as may be imposed on him under the circumstances. " ( 16 ) PETITIONER has applied for leave on medical ground. The applications filed by the petitioner were not rejected by the competent authority. Nor any enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Regulation 73 (ii) was conducted by the said authority, therefore, the petitioner cannot be blamed for overstaying without leave. However, in case the respondents are advised they can exercise their power under the aforesaid Regulation and conduct an enquiry, regarding ailment of the petitioner. The prayer of the petitioner for direction to pay his salary for the period he remained absent from the duty shall be subject to the result of the said enquiry. ( 17 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order of termination deserves to be set aside. ( 18 ) SUBJECT to what has been observed above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of termination dated 19. 8. 1987 is quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join his duties in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. . .