BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 17. 12. 2002 in WPNo. 21519 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Controller in National thermal Power Corporation at Ramagundam on 23. 3. 1984. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 1. 7. 1987. He remained absent from duty from 1. 11. 1988 to 7. 3. 1990. He was, however, allowed to rejoin duty on 8. 3. 1990. By proceedings dated 25. 5. 1992 warning was issued to the petitioner to be careful in future. Thereafter the petitioner was denied promotion and according to him, his juniors were promoted. He filed a writ petition being WP No. 22481 of 1994. On 28. 9. 1998 the petitioner was transferred from Ramagundam to kayamkulam in Kerala State. He filed a writ petition being WP No. 26155 of 1998 and the High Court granted interim stay of transfer. On 4. 12. 1998 a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against him for his absence from duty from 1. 11. 1998 to 7. 3. 1990. The petitioner filed his explanation on 30. 1. 1999. 2nd respondent awarded punishment of withholding of promotion for two years. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 26. 4. 1999. WP No. 26155 of 1998 was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the 2nd respondent- management to consider the petitioner s representation to retain him in the State of a. P. The High Court stayed the transfer for a period of three months, which was the period during which the 2nd respondent had to consider his representation. The petitioner made a representation on 12. 9. 1999 for his retention. On 1. 10. 1999 he was informed that his request for retention at Ramagundam had been rejected and he was relieved of his duty at Ramagundam on 4. 10. 1999. According to the petitioner, he went on making representations, but did not join at kayamukulam, therefore the respondents passed an order on 7. 8. 2000. By this order it was communicated to the petitioner that it was deemed that he had abandoned his service of Corporation as he was not attending his duties from 4. 10. 1999. 10. 1999. According to the petitioner, he went on making representations, but did not join at kayamukulam, therefore the respondents passed an order on 7. 8. 2000. By this order it was communicated to the petitioner that it was deemed that he had abandoned his service of Corporation as he was not attending his duties from 4. 10. 1999. This order was challenged in the present writ petition and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal. ( 3 ) THE only submission made before this Court is that the abandonment order could not have been passed without an enquiry which virtually amounts to dismissal of the petitioner from service. ( 4 ) THE contention of the respondents is that in terms of Rule 24. 9 of NTPC service Rules, Leave Rules and Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules the petitioner lost the right to hold the post on account of his continued unauthorized absence from duty and it has to be deemed that he had voluntarily abandoned the service. Rule 24. 9 lays down:"24. 9 Termination on account of unauthorised absence. 1. An employee who remains unauthorisedly absent from duty or place of work either without sanction of any leave or after expiry of sanctioned leave, if any, and does not report for duty for any reason whatsoever with in 90 (ninety) consecutive days from the date of his/her unauthorized absence, shall automatically lose lien on his/her post and he/she shall be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned and left the service of the Corporation, without notice. " ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of this rule, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without a formal enquiry. It may be noted that Rule 24. 9 was not challenged in the present writ petition nor has it been challenged in this appeal. Before coming to the judgments relied on by the parties, it will be necessary to give some more facts relating to the case. ( 6 ) IN the first case of absence the petitioner had given an explanation that he was absent owing to sickness and then a severe warning was given to him. Then again he absented himself from duty from 1. 1. ( 6 ) IN the first case of absence the petitioner had given an explanation that he was absent owing to sickness and then a severe warning was given to him. Then again he absented himself from duty from 1. 1. 1994 for five and half months and he filed a writ petition being WP No. 22481 of 1994, but the Management came to know that he went to Saudi Arabia for employment from 18. 10. 1998 in Saline Water conversion Plant. He concealed this fact and did not obtain any permission from the company. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 4. 12. 1998 and after due enquiry punishment was given to the petitioner of withholding of promotion for two years. Thereafter he was transferred to kayamkulam Project, Kerala by Order no. 349/98. He challenged this order also in wp No. 26155 of 1998 which was disposed of on 2. 7. 1999 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The respondents considered his representation and rejected his request to retain him at Ramagundam by order dated 4. 10. 1999. Instead of joining at Kayamkulam project, Kerala, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP No. 21484 of 1999 which was dismissed on 13. 10. 1999. Then 3rd respondent advised the petitioner to report for duty at Kayamkulam. But the petitioner filed a third writ petition on the same subject being WP No. 7734 of 2000. This writ petition was again dismissed on 7. 6. 2000. The petitioner had already withdrawn an amount of Rs. 33,000/- towards transfer grant, transfer pay and other allowances on his relief from Ramagundam, but did not report for duty at Kayamkulam project, Kerala. Officers of Kayamkulam prpject, Kerala sent a letter on 9. 2. 2000 to the petitioner by registered post asking him to join duty. The petitioner received the letter, but did not report for duty. Then he wrote a letter on 21. 2. 2000. This letter appears to be in response to the letters received by him and it makes an interesting reading. The relevant portions of the letter are reproduced below:"as my representations dated 8. 10. 1999/ 3. 11. 1999, 30. 11. 1999, 30. 12. 1999 and 7. 2. Then he wrote a letter on 21. 2. 2000. This letter appears to be in response to the letters received by him and it makes an interesting reading. The relevant portions of the letter are reproduced below:"as my representations dated 8. 10. 1999/ 3. 11. 1999, 30. 11. 1999, 30. 12. 1999 and 7. 2. 2000, regarding my transfer dispute, are still pending with F. D/sr, secunderabad, I request you to wait for me patiently, for joining duty in RSTPP or ky GPP, till my grievances are amicably settled by the ED/sr. Also I have already filed a promotion case in AP High Court in December 1994 and a damage suit Rs. 20 lakhs in Lok adalat,. . . . . . . . Both cases are still pending in court. Only after Court verdict, 1 will report for duty at RSTPP or Ky CPP, as per Court orders. Again I humbly request you not to send any letters, registered post, telegram etc. , to the Guduvanchery address, as I have already vacated and not stayed in this guduvanchery address for the past 2 years. Hence I request you not to take any hasty action and wait patiently for my jining duty, either at Ramagundam or kayamkulam, as per ED/sr settlement and Court order. As I have not at all reported at kayamkulam, since relieved forcibly on 4. 10. 1999, I will not respond to any of your letters, registered post, telegram etc. till the Court settlement. This is for your kind information please. Hence I request you to keep abeyance, in taking any hasty action, rill the settlement by the Court or ED/sr. This is for your kind information please. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) REGARDING transfers the petitioner had filed three writ petitions, one after another and by the date when he sent communication, all the three writ petitions had been dismissed. In spite of receiving above reply dated 21. 2. 2000 from the petitioner, the respondents issued another registered letter on 9. 3. 2000 to the petitioner. This letter specifically informed the petitioner that in case he failed to report for duty immediately, he would loose his lien on the post and his name would be struck off from the rolls of Corporation. He received the letter, but did not report for duty. Thereafter action was taken against the petitioner. 3. 2000 to the petitioner. This letter specifically informed the petitioner that in case he failed to report for duty immediately, he would loose his lien on the post and his name would be struck off from the rolls of Corporation. He received the letter, but did not report for duty. Thereafter action was taken against the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had received all terminal benefits including provident fund and gratuity through demand drafts and encashed them without even protest. ( 8 ) IN the light of these facts, the judgments pressed into service by the parties will have to be considered. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the supreme Court reported in Shri D. K. Yadav v. M/s. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. , 1993 (4) slr 126. This was a case altogether in different circumstances. The rule under consideration of the Supreme Court was similar to the Rule 24. 9 of NTPC Service rules, Leave Rules and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. The relevant rule which was under consideration of the Supreme court was,"clause 13 (2) (iv) standing order reads thus: if a workman remains absent without sanctioned leave or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unless (a) he returns within 8 calendar days of the commencement of the absence of the expiry of leave originally granted or subsequently extended as the case may be; and (b) explains to the satisfaction of the manager/management the reason of his absence or his inability to return on the expiry of the leave, as the case may be. The workman not reporting for duty within 8 calendar days as mentioned above, shall be deemed to have automatically abandoned the services and last his lien on his appointment. His name shall be struck off from the Muster Rolls in such an eventuality. " ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court did not quash this rule, but in Para 5 it came to the conclusion:"his contention that expiry of eight days absence from duty brings about automatic loss of lien on the post and nothing more need be done by the management to pass an order terminating the service and per force termination is automatic, bears no substance. The Constitution Bench specifically held that the right of the employer given under the standing orders gets effected by statutory operation. In robert D souza s case (1982) 1 SCC 645 , in para 7, this Court rejected the contention that on expiry of leave the termination of service is automatic and nothing further could be done. It was further held that striking of the name from the rolls for unauthorized absence from duty amounted to termination of service and absence from duty for 8 consecutive days amounts to misconduct and termination of service on such grounds without complying with minimum principles of natural justice would not be justified. In Shambhunaih s case three Judges Bench held that striking of the name of the workman for absence of leave itself amounted to retrenchment. In h. D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and others, ( 1985 (4) SCC 201 ), this Court held that striking of the name from the rolls amounts to an arbitrary action. In State bank of India v. Workmen of Slate Bank of india and another, (1991) 1 SCC 13 = (1990 (5) SLR 38 (SC), a two Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us, K. R. S. , J. , was a member was to consider the effect of discharge on one month s notice or pay 200 2005 (3) ALD June 1st in lieu thereof. It was held that it was not a discharge simplicitor or a simple termination of service but one camouflaged for serious misconduct. This Court lifted the veil and looked beyond the apparent tenor of the order and its effect. It was held that the action was not valid in law. " ( 10 ) IN Para 12 it came to the conclusion that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to explain his case and no enquiry was held, therefore in those circumstances the Supreme Court quashed the order of termination. It was held that the action was not valid in law. " ( 10 ) IN Para 12 it came to the conclusion that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to explain his case and no enquiry was held, therefore in those circumstances the Supreme Court quashed the order of termination. ( 11 ) IN the present case we have seen that the petitioner has been absent from duty continuously for number of years, in spite of challenging the order of transfer three times in the High Court and loosing it, he did not join at his new station of posting, on the other hand he advised the management through his reply that the management should have patience and should wait for him till he makes his mind for joining. He accepted the transfer allowances and transfer pay and also accepted the other terminal benefits as if he was terminated from service. There is no justification at all for the petitioner in not having joined at Kayamkulam, Kerala and on the other hand he advised the management to have patience. A last notice was issued to him on 9. 3. 2000 in which he was specifically told that he will lose his job if he did not immediately join duty. He did not join duty, he did not even reply the Management. ( 12 ) IN a judgment reported in syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, syndicate Bank Staff Association and another, (2000) 5 SCC 64 , also there was a rule similar to Rule 24. 9 of NTPC Service rules, Leave Rules and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules in the present case and it was not disputed that the employee had absented himself for more than 90 consecutive days and the Supreme Court in Para 16 held that the requirement of principles of natural justice in such a case would be: (1) a workman should know the nature of the complaint or accusation; (2) an opportunity to state his case and (3) the Management should be fair, reasonable and just. ( 13 ) IF we apply these three principles to the present case, we do not find that the Management has violated anything. ( 13 ) IF we apply these three principles to the present case, we do not find that the Management has violated anything. The petitioner for the last more than ten years has been in the Courts refusing to join duty at the place where he was posted and at an earlier stage also he absented himself from duty on the ground that he was sick, but the Management later on found that the man had taken another employment somewhere outside the country during the period of absence. ( 14 ) IN a judgment reported in Uptron india Ltd. , v. Shammi Bhan and another, (1998) 6 SCC 538 = 1998 (3) ALD (SCSN) 16, clause 17 (g) of the Certified Standing orders was under consideration before the supreme Court which reads as under:"the services of a workman are liable to automatic termination if he overstays on leave without permission for more than seven days. In case of sickness, the Medical certificate must be submitted within a week. "considering this clause the Supreme Court in Para 20 said:"there is another angle of looking at the problem. Clause 17 (g) which has been extracted above, significandy does not say that the services of a workman who overstays the leave for more than seven days shall stand automatically terminated. What it says is that "the services are liable to automatic termination". This provision, therefore, confers a discretion upon the management to terminate or not to terminate the services of an employee who overstays the leave. It is obvious that this discretion cannot be exercised, or permitted to be exercised, capriciously. The discretion has to be based on an objective consideration of all the circumstances and material which may be available on record. What are the circumstances which compelled the employee to proceed on leave; why he overstayed the leave, was there any just and reasonable cause for overstaying the leave; whether he gave any further application for extension of leave; whether any Medical Certificate was sent if he had, in the meantime, fallen ill? these are questions which would naturally arise while deciding to terminate the services of the employee for overstaying the leave. these are questions which would naturally arise while deciding to terminate the services of the employee for overstaying the leave. Who would answer these questions and who would furnish the material to enable the management to decide whether to terminate or not to terminate the services are again questions which have an answer inherent in the provision itself, namely, that the employee against whom action on the basis of this provision is proposed to be taken must be given an opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice, which have to be read into the offending clause, must be complied with and the employee must be informed of the grounds for which action was proposed to be taken against him for overstaying the leave. " ( 15 ) THE Supreme Court considered the D. K. Yadav s case (supra) also and many other cases decided by it prior to that and reiterated that principles of natural just would have to be read into the provisions relating to automatic termination of services. In no case the Supreme Court had held that such a rule was bad or ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of india. ( 16 ) WE have already given reasons hereinabove that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain his position or report for duty at Kayamkulam, Kerala. He was in know of the fact that action would be taken against him in terms of rule 24. 9 of NTPC Service Rules, Leave rules and Conduct, Discipline and Appeal rules. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.