Judgment : ( 2 ) ON 11/02/1989 the respondent no. 1 was given notice regarding his unauthorisd absence from 26/11/1988 and he was directed to join his duty along with explanation for his unauthorized absence within a month, otherwise the management would be compelled to terminate his lien on his appointment, which was received by him, but he failed to either report on duty or file explanation of his unauthorized absence from 26/11/1988. ( 3 ) IN such circumstance, in terms of clause 15 (x) of the Certified Standing Orders, he lost his lien on his appointment and was deemed to have left services of the Corporation on his own accord without any information and, therefore, his name was struck off the rolls of the corporation with retrospective effect from 26/11/1988, by Office Order issued on 15/06/1989. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said order dated 15/06/1989, the respondent No. 1 preferred appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation, which was dismissed on 30/06/1999. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 1 claimed that he was under treatment in Ranchi Manshik arogyasala from 27/11/1988 to february 17, 1989. In this regard, he produced a medical certificate of Dr. U. N. Choudhary, Medical Officer of the arogyasala and alleged that necessary procedure for terminating his services was not followed and the punishment awarded to him was too harsh and excessive. ( 6 ) HE thereafter filed CWJC No. 3274 of 1999 (R) in this Court, which was allowed on 20/04/2001 and the orders dated 15/06/1989 and J 30/06/1989 were quashed and a direction was given to the Corporation to pay 50% back wages to him for the entire period. The Corporation has, therefore, preferred the present appeal against those orders. ( 7 ) CLAUSE 15 (x) of the Certified Standing orders as modified with effect from 10/01/1983 reads as under:"the workman/employee who remains absent from duty without leave or fails to return to duty after expiry of the leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended shall be liable to disciplinary action. Where the period of such absence exceeds 15 days the management may terminate his lien on his appointment after giving one months notice of their intention to terminate his lien, unless the workman/employee returns to duty before the expiry of the period specified in the notice and submits application for regularizing his absence. Where the period of such absence exceeds 15 days the management may terminate his lien on his appointment after giving one months notice of their intention to terminate his lien, unless the workman/employee returns to duty before the expiry of the period specified in the notice and submits application for regularizing his absence. "( 8 ) HOWEVER, instead of quoting the relevant modified clause 15 (x), in paragraph 14 of the writ application the following unamended clause was quoted:" 15 (x ). A workman/employee who remains absent from duty without leave, or in excess of the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended, shall be liable to disciplinary action unless he is able to explain his absence in a manner satisfactory to the sanctioning authority. Where the period of such absence exceeds 15 days, the workman/employee shall lose his lien on his appointment and if he explains his absence to the satisfaction of the management his name may be kept on the Badli list. " ( 9 ) THE learned single Judge in the impugned order consequently quoted the old clause which was not in existence and considered the matter in accordance therewith. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge applied the ratio of a decision of the Apex Court in Scooters india Limited v. M. Md. Yaqub and another, 2001 (1) SCC 61 : 2001 1 LLJ 7 and observed that before terminating the services or before invoking clause 15 (x), no charge-sheet was issued nor any departmental proceeding was initiated and as such termination of the services of the writ petitioner amounted to retrenchment without following the provisions of law. Hence, the writ application was allowed and the orders passed by the authorities concerned, terminating his services were quashed. The learned single Judge also directed payment of his 50% back wages for the entire period. Hence, the writ application was allowed and the orders passed by the authorities concerned, terminating his services were quashed. The learned single Judge also directed payment of his 50% back wages for the entire period. ( 11 ) A perusal of clause 15 (x), as modified with effect from 10/01/1983, reveals that in the event of an employee absenting himself from duty unauthorizedly, the management is required to give a notice to the said employee, calling upon him to report for duty within a month of the notice stating, inter alia, the grounds of absence, for the management to come to the conclusion that the employee concerned had no intention of not joining the duty and furnishing necessary evidence, wherever relevant and unless the employee reports for duty within a month of the notice or gives explanation for his absence satisfying the management for regularizing his absence, he would lose his lien on appointment and would be deemed to have left the services of the corporation on his own accord, without any information and his name will be struck off from the rolls of the Corporation. It goes without saying that in the event such employee gives a satisfactory reply, his leave will be regularized. ( 12 ) IN the memorandum of appeal, filed before the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, the respondent No. 1 alleged that he tried to hand over the medical certificate dated 17/02/1989, but no one received it. He further alleged that his joining was not accepted, rather the authority concerned restrained him to join his duty and thereafter on 15/06/1989, the termination order in terms of clause 15 (x) of the Certified Standing orders was passed. The appellate authority observed that even if as per his case as alleged in the memorandum of appeal, Lidha Oraon has had reasons for his absence from November 27, 198 8/02/1989, when he remained under treatment at Ranchi Manshik arogyasala, but no effort had been made by him to resume his duty after 17/02/1989 and having waited for a considerable long period of time for him to turn up for his duty, the management had no other alternative, but to invoke clause 15 (x) of the Certified Standing orders of the Corporation and accordingly he was rightly deemed to have left the services of the Corporation of his own accord without any information. ( 13 ) WE find that under the aforesaid rule an employee is given an opportunity to rejoin his duty within a stipulated time or explain his position to the satisfaction of the management that he has no intention of not joining the duty and for a bonafide cause he was absent. Hence, termination of service of such employee, in our opinion, is not a punishment for misconduct. The principles of natural justice are in-built in clause 15 (x ). In the present case notice was given to the respondent No. 1 but it is he who defaulted and offered no explanation of his absence of his duty and did not report to his duty within the stipulated time. ( 14 ) IN this regard reference may be made to a decision of the Apex Court in Punjab and sind Bank and others v. Sakattar Singh, 2001 (1) SCC 214 : 2001 1 LLJ 174 , wherein on interpretation of similar clause 16 (iv) of the bipartite Settlement relating to Punjab and Sind bank, like the present clause 15 (x) of the certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, it was held that the principles of natural justice cannot be examined in vacuum without reference to the fact situation arising in the case. It was further held that if on such notice the employee concerned did not submit any explanation regarding his absence or placed any material that he did report for duty, but was not allowed to join, an enquiry may have been initiated, but not otherwise. ( 15 ) THE respondent No. 1 claimed to have become fit to join his duty on 17/02/1989 and produced a medical certificate for being under treatment from November 27, 198 8/02/1989, but he did not join his duty within one month from 11/02/1989, when notice under clause 15 (x) was issued and served on him, nor furnished any explanation of his absence nor filed any medical certificate. ( 16 ) WE do not find any material on record to show that the respondent No. 1 had proceeded on leave on medical advice for any mental ailment at any time. ( 16 ) WE do not find any material on record to show that the respondent No. 1 had proceeded on leave on medical advice for any mental ailment at any time. Further, if he was declared fit to join duty on 17/02/1989 he could have very well joined within one month of notice under clause 15 (x) conveniently, but there is absolutely no explanation as to why he did not report to his duty till 15/06/1989, when the order of his termination from service was passed. Even if he had some difficulty in joining the duty he could have easily produced medical certificate along with the explanation of absence well within the stipulated time of one month mentioned in the notice dated 11/02/1989. ( 17 ) THUS we think that the contention put forward on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that he was suffering from mental ailment and was under treatment from 27/11/1988 to 17/02/1989 is difficult to be accepted and the medical certificate was procured only for the purpose of filing the statutory appeal against the termination order. ( 18 ) IN our opinion, the factual context in the present case differs in material particulars from the case of Scooters India Limited, (supra) and the provisions of the Standing Orders 9. 3. 12 were not the same and similar to the amended clause 15 (x) herein. In the said Standing Orders there was no provision for one months notice to the employee for joining duty and furnishing explanation of bona fide absence before striking off his name from the rolls. So, the ratio of the scooters India Limited, (supra) was not applicable in the present case and it is fully covered by the decision in Punjab and Sind Bank case, (supra ). ( 19 ) ON applying the ratio Punjab and Sind bank, (supra) we find that striking off the name of the respondent No. 1 from the rolls of the corporation was not a punishment for misconduct, but only to notice the realities of the situation resulting from long absence of the respondent No. 1 from work with no satisfactory explanation thereto. When an employee without appropriate intimation to the management is playing truant, it can very well be presumed that he does not require the job any more. When an employee without appropriate intimation to the management is playing truant, it can very well be presumed that he does not require the job any more. ( 20 ) IT was not a case of termination or retrenchment, rather in terms of clause 15 (x)of the Standing Orders the respondent No. 1 lost his lien on his appointment and he was not entitled to reinstatement. In Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Bank Staff Association and another, AIR 2000 SC 2198 : 2000 (5) SCC 65 : 2000 1 LLJ 1630 , the Apex Court held that the requirement of the principles of natural justice are (i) a workman should know the nature of the complaint or accusation (ii) an opportunity to state his case and (iii) the management should act in good faith which means that action of the management was fair, reasonable and just. In our opinion, all these three criteria have been fully complied in the present case. ( 21 ) WE find no reason to interfere with the office order dated 15/06/1989 as well as the appellate order dated 30/06/1999 and set aside the order dated 20/04/2001 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 3274 of 1999 (R) and dismiss the said writ application filed by the respondent No. 1. ( 22 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and without costs. --- *** --- .