ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 2-4-2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 by which it has affirmed the order dated 15/22-3-1995 passed by disciplinary authority whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the records are that the petitioner was appointed as Dumper Operator in Gevra Project, SECL, in the year 1983. He was transferred from Gevra to Sohagpur, Amlayi, Open cast mines vide order dated 20-1-1993. He joined there on 13-2-1993 and thereafter he made an appeal before the Managing Director of the company regarding his safety at Sohagpur area as he has suffered the incident at the work place on 14-1-1992. Thereafter, he was again transferred from Sohagpur to Chirmiri. The petitioner has made various representations regarding his safety at the work place. It was alleged that the petitioner did not join at Chirmiri and he remained unauthorized absent from duty from 16-3-1993. Therefore, he was served with charge sheet dated 22.09.1994 wherein charges were levelled for committing serious misconduct as provided in Clause 26.30 of the Standing Orders of the Company. The petitioner was served with following charges:- “26.30 Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave.” 3. Charge sheet was issued for service on following address “Arun Kumar s/o. Manshalchand, Senior Dumper Operator, -B/184, Urja Nagar, P.O. Gevra Project, District Bilaspur (MP) 4954452. The respondent appointed Senior Manager Amalayai Open Cast Mines as Enquiry Officer and Engineer (excavation) as Management representative vide its order dated 21-12-1994. The Inquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner for his appearance in the enquiry proceedings on 30.12.1994 vide notice dated 26.12.1994 and thereafter issued notice for appearance on 06.01.1995. No notice was served upon the petitioner as the notice was returned with endorsement “not found returned to sender”. Thereafter, notice was published in daily newspaper “Samay” which was published from Shahdol wherein the address of the petitioner was mentioned as B/184 Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, Bilaspur (M.P.). By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to appear for inquiry on 20.01.1995. 4. Thereafter, notice was published in daily newspaper “Samay” which was published from Shahdol wherein the address of the petitioner was mentioned as B/184 Urja Nagar, Gevra Project, Bilaspur (M.P.). By the said notice, the petitioner was directed to appear for inquiry on 20.01.1995. 4. It has been further contended by the petitioner that he was not served with the notice for appearance in the inquiry, therefore, he could not defend himself and the respondent vide order dated 15.12.1995 had removed the petitioner from services. The removal order reads as under:- “You were charge sheeted vide charge-sheet No. SECL/SOM/AOCM/..94/645 dated 22-9-1994 issued by the Suodt(M)/Manager, Amlai, O.C.M., an Enquiry Officer was appointed vide officer order No. SECL/SOM/MGR/AOCM/94/1129 dated 21/24-1-1994 to conduct the fail and impartial enquiry into the charges levelled against you. Accordingly, the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer. You have been given full opportunity/chance to present and participate in the Enquiry proceedings to defend your case as per the law of NATURAL JUSTIFE but in spite of repeated advises, you did not turn up before the enquiry proceedings. As such, the enquiry was conducted ex parte by the Enquiry Officer. As per the findings of the enquiry officer, the charges levelled against you has been proved beyond any doubt and I fully agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has rightly held you guilty of the misconduct under Clause 26.30 of Certified standing orders, applicable to you. As the misconduct on your part is very grave and serious in nature, you are hereby removed/terminated from the services of the Company (South Eastern Coalfields Limited), with immediate effect. You are advised to collect all your legal dues, on any working day during the working hours, after submission of NO DUES CERTIFICATES from the concerned sections/departments of Almai OCM.” 5. You are advised to collect all your legal dues, on any working day during the working hours, after submission of NO DUES CERTIFICATES from the concerned sections/departments of Almai OCM.” 5. The removal order was served through registered post to the petitioner thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal order which was dismissed on 08.05.2011, against which the petitioner has preferred writ petition before this Court which was registered as WPS No. 40/2012, wherein this Court has passed the following order on 02.03.2022 which reads as under:- “Reverting to the facts of the present casein light of the aforesaid legal position, it is quite vivid that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider and decide the appeal in accordance with the observations made herein-above and did not assign any cogent reason as to whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are justified or not and whether the punishment is appropriate or excessive and it requires interference, Authority has failed as such, the Appellate to perform its duty. Moreover, the appellate order, duly passed, has not been duly communicated to the petitioner the appellate authority and only the result of the appeal has been communicated to the petitioner, which is ex-facie illegal/improper. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08/05/2011 (Annexure P/6), deserve to be and is hereby quashed. The Director (Personnel) is directed to to hear and decide the appeal after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the respondents have again examined the case of petitioner and dismissed the appeal on 02.04.2022. The Appellate Authority has recorded its findings that the address mentioned in the memo of appeal is Quarter No. B/184, Gevra Colony, PO Urja Nagar, District-Bilaspur, whereas the notice for appearance of the petitioner in the inquiry proceeding was returned with endorsement “not found to the sender”. The Appellate Authority has also recorded its finding that in the inquiry proceeding sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and even second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.02.1995 which was not replied by him. The Appellate Authority has also recorded its finding that in the inquiry proceeding sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and even second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.02.1995 which was not replied by him. The Appellate Authority has also given opportunity of hearing and while hearing the appeal the petitioner reiterated the stand that the transfer order was passed with mala fide reasons and he was deprived to discharge his duties and submitted that punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, therefore, his appeal may kindly be allowed. The Appellate Authority after reiterating the factual matrix has affirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved with this order the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition wherein he has prayed for following reliefs:- “(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the answering respondent to quash the impugned final order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the respondent. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to adequately compensate the losses accrued to petitioner.” 7. Respondents have filed their return in which they have raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner has already challenged the inquiry proceeding and order of termination before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short, “CGIT”) Jabalpur which was registered at CG/LC/R/42/16 and Central Government vide order dated 26.04.2016 has already referred the dispute with regard to validity of the Departmental Enquiry and termination of the petitioner, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The respondents in their return has further contended that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from duty without sanction and information after joining at Sohagpur area. The respondent issued show cause notice on 24.06.1993, 05.07.1993 and 29.08.1994 for joining his duties and explanation was also sought regarding his absence from his official duties, but no reply was filed by the petitioner. Since no reply was filed the respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner which was returned to answering respondent by the Department of post with an endorsement that “not found”/ “out of station” on several dates which shows that the petitioner from very beginning avoiding giving reply to the notices. Since no reply was filed the respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner which was returned to answering respondent by the Department of post with an endorsement that “not found”/ “out of station” on several dates which shows that the petitioner from very beginning avoiding giving reply to the notices. Since no reply was submitted to show cause notice the respondents issued charge sheet to the petitioner on 22.09.1994 and petitioner was directed to file reply to it, but he did not give any reply and even remained absent from his duties. Thereafter, on 21.12.1994 vide letter No. 1129 the petitioner was informed about the appointment of inquiry officer but the said letter came back to the respondent stating that the petitioner was “out of station”. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.12.1994 and 30.12.1994 reminders were issued to the petitioner stating that the inquiry has been commenced and he may produce the documents, evidence or any witnesses to defend himself on the next date of hearing ie., on 06.01.1995. It has also been contended by the respondents that the paper publication was done on 08.01.1995 regarding date of hearing of inquiry proceedings which was fixed for 20.01.1995 in the daily newspaper, but the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, therefore, the Inquiry Officer has conducted ex parte inquiry against the petitioner and he was served with punishment of termination. It has also been contended that all opportunities of hearing have been granted to the petitioner but he did not avail of it, and thus, he himself was responsible for not participating in the enquiry. He would further submit that since enquiry has been conducted in conformity with principle of natural justice giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereafter punishment of removal from service has been passed which is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, thus it has been submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9. Considering the aforesaid submission raised by the respondents, this Court has called for record of CGIT on 01.08.2023 as well as also directed SECL to produce record pertaining to Departmental Enquiry which has been produced by them. 9. Considering the aforesaid submission raised by the respondents, this Court has called for record of CGIT on 01.08.2023 as well as also directed SECL to produce record pertaining to Departmental Enquiry which has been produced by them. The learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the record of CGIT would submit that the petitioner is not participating in the proceeding before the CGIT and he has informed the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court that he has already filed writ petition before this High Court in the year 2012 bearing WPS No 40 of 2012 which was pending as on 18-4-2017. Thus, he was not interested to prosecute the case before the learned CGIT. Again he has informed the Presiding Officer regarding the pendency of the case. No statement of claim has been filed by the petitioner which clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case even in the WP(S) No. 30 of 2012 no objection regarding parallel proceedings pending before the CGIT has been raised and this Court has already directed for deciding the appeal afresh vide order dated 02.03.2022. As such, once this Court has already dealt the matter and orders have been passed by this Court directing the respondents to decide the appeal earlier also the petitioner has filed WP(S) No. 7397 of 2010 wherein he has also prayed for reinstatement in which this court has directed for deciding the appeal which clearly shows that the petitioner was prosecuting the remedy before this court only, as such the objection raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the writ petition is rejected. The record of the CGIT would demonstrate that the dispute was referred by the Central Government to the CGIT Jabalpur on 26.04.2016 whereas the writ petitions are already filed before this Court in the year 2010, 2012, 2022 and also considering that no effective adjudication of the dispute has been taken place before the learned CGIT and also considering the petitioner’s services were terminated in the year 1995 and would pray that this court may examine the case of the petitioner and respondents on its own merits and the objection raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae along with the petitioner in person would submit that principle of natural justice has been violated and no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Thus, the enquiry is bad-in-law and he would further submit that on the basis of illegal enquiry, punishment order imposed upon the petitioner is illegal and even otherwise he would submit that misconduct is disproportionate to the misconduct and he has explained his reason for absent which has not been taken into consideration. Thus, the order dated 15-12-1995 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority are bad-in-law and would pray for quashing of the order. He would further submit that since the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, he may be given all the benefits till the age of retirement. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for respondent/SECL would submit that enquiry has been conducted in accordance with principle of natural justice giving him proper opportunity of hearing, but he has not participated in the enquiry despite proper opportunity was granted to him and even taking his presence in the enquiry, paper publication was done on 8-1-2015 in the daily newspaper “Samay”, for his appearance, still the petitioner has not appeared in the enquiry proceeding, therefore, enquiry officer has proceeded ex parte against him wherein charges levelled against him were found proved, thus he would submit that enquiry has been done strictly in accordance with principle of natural justice and fair play. He would further submit that punishment was proportionate to misconduct committed by the petitioner, therefore, the punishment is just and proper. To substantiate his arguments he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in WP No 9488 of 2020 in the case of Girraj Singh vs. State of MP, and also referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India vs. Apurva Kumar Saha, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 615 , State Bank of India vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 740 , Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , State of Punjab vs. DR. P.L. Singla, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469 . 12. P.L. Singla, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 469 . 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost satisfaction. 13. From the aforesaid submissions made by the parties, following points emerged tor determination by this Court are: (i) whether the writ petition in view of reference pending before the CGIT is maintainable or not ?, (ii) whether enquiry has been conducted in conformity with principle of natural justice or not and (iii) whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner, if yes, what will be its effect?. Point No.1: 14. The respondents have forcefully taken objection about maintainability of the writ petition before this court as in view of pendency of the reference before the CGIT Jabalpur. To answer this question, this court has called upon the record of the case which clearly demonstrates that the workman has not filed any statement of claim and the reference was made in the year 2016 whereas the petitioner is agitating before this court since 2010 by filing Writ Petition No. 7397 of 2010 and thereafter the Writ Petition (S) No 30 of 2012 which has been decided by this court on 15-3-2012 remanding the matter to the respondent to decide the appeal by passing a well reasoned order and the record would demonstrate that the respondent has not taken any objection when the writ petition No 30 of 2012 was filed and even the record of CGIT would show that no effective adjudication on the dispute has been taken place in the matter and the matter is adjourned for reasons mentioned in the order sheet. Thus, it is clearly vivid that no judicial order has been passed regarding the issue raised in this writ petition, as such there is no bar for this court to hear the matter. 15. Considering the fact that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1995, more than 28 years have already lapsed and three writ petitions have already been filed before this court challenging the action of the management, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served for directing the petitioner to participate in the reference pending before it. 15. Considering the fact that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 1995, more than 28 years have already lapsed and three writ petitions have already been filed before this court challenging the action of the management, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served for directing the petitioner to participate in the reference pending before it. As such, this court is of the view that looking to the specific circumstances prevailing in the case and also considering the various orders have been passed by this court, the writ petition is very much maintainable before his court. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary relief which can be considered and even the alternative efficacious remedy is available to the litigant as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai; reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 which reads as under :- “16. Rashid Ahmad vs. Municipal Board, kairana, AIR 1960 SC 163, laid down that existence of an adequate legal remedy was a factor to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting Writs. This was followed by another Rashid case, namely, K.S. Rashid & Son Vs. The Income Tax Investigation Commissioner AIR 1954 SC 207 which reiterated the above proposition and held that where alternative remedy esisted, it would be a sound exercise of discreation to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226. This proposition was, however, qualified by the significant words, "unless there are good grounds therefore", which indicated that alternative remedy would not operate as an absolute bar and that Writ Petition under Article 226 could still be entertained in exceptional circumstances. 17. A Specific and clear rule was laid down in State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh 1958 SCR 595 = AIR 1958 SC 86 , as under : "But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the Writ will be granted is a rule of policy convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies." 18. This proposition was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs. Bombay vs Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. This proposition was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs. Bombay vs Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1506 and was affirmed and followed in the following words "The passages in the judgments of this Court we have extracted would indicate (1) that the two exceptions which the learned solicitor General formulated to the nor-mal rule as to the effect of the existence of an adequate alternative remedy were by no means exhaustive and (2) that even beyond them a discretion vested in the High Court to have entertained the petition and granted the petitioner relief notwithstanding the existence of an alternative remedy. We need only add that the broad lines of the general principles on which the Court should act having been clearly laid down, their application to the facts of each particular case must necessarily be dependent on a variety of individual facts which must govern the proper exercise of the discretion of the Court, and that in a matter which is thus per-eminently one of discretion, it is not possible or even if it were, it would not be desirable to lay down inflexible rules which should be applied with rigidity in every case which comes up before the Court". 19. Another Constitution Bench decision in Calcutta Discount co. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer Companies Distt. I AIR 1961 SC 372 laid down : "Though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an ex-ecutive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and un-necessary harassment. The High Court will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under 8.34 I.T. Act". 20. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and un-necessary harassment. The High Court will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. Writ of certiorari and prohibition can issue against Income Tax Officer acting without jurisdiction under 8.34 I.T. Act". 20. Much water has since flown beneath the bridge, but there has been no corrosive effect on these decisions which though old, continue to hold the field with the result that law as to the jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in spite of the alternative statutory remedies, is not affected, specially in a case where the authority against whom the Writ is filed is shown to have had no jurisdiction or had purported to usurp jurisdiction without any legal foundation.” This is the case where various writ petitions have been filed and dispute is pending for the last 28 years, therefore, this court can well entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the objection raised by the respondent is rejected and accordingly question No.1 is answered against the respondent management. Point No.2 16. The record of the case would demonstrate that the charge sheet dated 22-9-1994 was issued mentioning the address of the petitioner as “Arun Kumar, B-184, Gevra Project, District Bilaspur, MP and the petitioner in his writ petition has mentioned the fact that in grounds clause 9-D and 9-E which read as under: “9.D Because the petitioner was transferred from Gevra to Sohagpur without any just and proper reason. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Sohagpur on 25.01.1993. The petitioner complied the order and joined the office at Sohagpur on 10.02.1993. Subsequently, the petitioner has encountered with a horrible incident on 14.02.1993. Consequently, he moved back to Gevra for his safety and he didn't go back again to Sohagpur. Thereafter, the petitioner has informed the Company Headquarter on 16.02.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the Sub - Area Manager, New O.C.M. Amlayi, Sohagpur on 26.02.1993 informing the same. A copy of the letter darted26.02.1993 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P/4. Consequently, he moved back to Gevra for his safety and he didn't go back again to Sohagpur. Thereafter, the petitioner has informed the Company Headquarter on 16.02.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a letter to the Sub - Area Manager, New O.C.M. Amlayi, Sohagpur on 26.02.1993 informing the same. A copy of the letter darted26.02.1993 is annexed herewith as Annexure-P/4. 9.E Because the petitioner had informed the General Manager, Sohagpur about his inability to work at Sohagpur due to his personal safety through the letter dated 07.02.1993 and also informed the S.A.M. (New Amlayi) through the letter dated 30.08.1994.” 17. The respondent in his reply has not denied the appeal preferred by the petitioner with regard to incident took place with him and in the reply they have categorically stated that the letter sent to the petitioner for appearance before the enquiry officer where the same was returned back with the endorsement that the petitioner was out of station and the paper publication was done at Sohagpur in daily newspaper “Samay” whereas the petitioner's address was known to them as B/184, Urja Nagar, PO Gevra, District Bilaspur which clearly shows that notice issued to him has not been served. Even otherwise, the notice should be served upon the registered address mentioned in the record of the company or in the home district but the enquiry officer has not issued any notice on the registered address given in the service book or home address and record of the case would also show that the petitioner has given his joining report on 10-2-.1993 before the General Manager, Sohagpur area as per the information given to the Personal Manager on 27-4-1995. Thus, it is incumbent upon the respondent to serve upon the notice on the registered address of the petitioner or on the home district/permanent address when particularly the letter sent through post was returned with endorsement “not found” and returned to the sender. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the letter was sent by the petitioner to the General Manager wherein he has mentioned his address as B/184, Urja Nagar, P.O. Gevra Road, Bilaspur. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent company has certified standing order which is binding upon the petitioner and the respondent. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the letter was sent by the petitioner to the General Manager wherein he has mentioned his address as B/184, Urja Nagar, P.O. Gevra Road, Bilaspur. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent company has certified standing order which is binding upon the petitioner and the respondent. The certified standing orders provide that every employee is required to notify the management his local or permanent residential address and any change of address local or permanent shall immediately be notified in writing to the management. Thus, the permanent address of the workman is available with the respondent, therefore, when the notice was returned with endorsement that the workman is not found available, then it is required for the management to serve notice on the permanent address of the petitioner. As such, it cannot be held that the petitioner was served with notice on proper address and he was avoiding notice. 18. The record of the case would reflect that in the paper publication the address of the petitioner was shown as B/184, Urja Nagar, Gevra Road, District Bilaspur whereas the paper which was published is from Sahadol and whether this paper is circulated at Bilaspur or not is also not clarified by the respondents in the return. Even otherwise law with regard to paper publication of notice of hearing it has been well settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court that notice should be published in daily newspaper which is circulated in the area where the person actually and normally resides . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Greater Punjab Agro Industrial Limited vs. Khushian and Others reported in 2005 (13) SCC 503 has held as under:- “3. …The notice to the appellant is by way of substituted service. The substituted service was published in the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari which have circulation only in the State of Punjab. Admittedly, the appellant stays at Bombay. The newspapers in which the notice was published by way of substituted service, namely, the Tribune and the Punjab Kesari have no circulation in Bombay. Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC enjoins that if the service of notice is by advertisement in the newspaper, it shall be in the daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) CPC enjoins that if the service of notice is by advertisement in the newspaper, it shall be in the daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. In the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Order 5 Rule 20(1-A) with regard to substituted service has been violated. In the premises, it cannot be said that the summons upon the defendant were effectively served. In this view of the matter, the ex parte decree dated 16-4-1994 is set aside.” 19. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Poddar & another Vs. Union Bank of India reported in 2008 (2) SCC 326 has considered this issue and held as under:- “We are also inclined to uphold the argument of learned counsel for the Bank that in view of the fact that the appellants were appearing before the Civil Court, it was not necessary for the Bank to get summonses published in a newspaper after the matter was transferred in accordance with law to the DRT, Jabalpur. But even that step was taken by the respondent-Bank. In Navbharat Times, a Hindi newspaper having wide circulation in Bombay and Raipur, summonses were published. It cannot be argued successfully that the appellants were not the subscribers of the said newspaper and were not reading Navbharat Times Hindi Edition. But even otherwise, such contention is wholly irrelevant. As to bills said to have been produced from the newspaper agent, to us, both the Tribunals were right in ob-serving that such a bill can be obtained at any time and no implicit reliance can be placed on that evidence. It is immaterial whether appellants were subscribers of the said newspaper and whether they were reading it. Once a summons is published in a newspaper having wide circulation in the locality, it does not lie in the mouth of the person sought to be served that he was not aware of such publication as he was not reading the said newspaper. That ground also, therefore, does not impress us and was rightly rejected by the Tribunals. 17. While dealing with the contention raised by the appellants, the DRT observed; When summons are published in newspaper, the Court has to be cautious that it is published in a newspaper, circulated and widely read in an area where the defendant stays. That ground also, therefore, does not impress us and was rightly rejected by the Tribunals. 17. While dealing with the contention raised by the appellants, the DRT observed; When summons are published in newspaper, the Court has to be cautious that it is published in a newspaper, circulated and widely read in an area where the defendant stays. Navbharat Times is a national newspaper read not only in Mumbai but also else-where in this country. The summons were published also in a news-paper circulated in Raipur from where the loan was disbursed. As stated in the main order, the Court is satisfied that summons were properly published and summons has been properly served.” As such, it is quite vivid that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 20. Thus, the enquiry suffers from principle of natural justice and fair play, therefore, the enquiry is bad-in-law and deserves to be vitiated by this court. The judgments cited by the respondent in the case of SBI vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey and Bank of India vs. Apurva Kumar Saha are distinguishable to the facts of the present case as in that case the workman participated in the enquiry and he was also examined in the enquiry, thereafter the order was passed and the High Court of Odissa on the count that the principle of natural justice is violated, has quashed the punishment order whereas in the present case, it was alleged by the petitioner that no notice was served upon him, even the respondent has admitted the fact that notice was returned with endorsement “not found”. Thus, there is clear violation of principle of natural justice, as such inquiry deserves to be vitiated and accordingly it is vitiated Point No.3 21. Since enquiry is vitiated by non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, this court can very well remand the matter back to the disciplinary authority to conduct fresh enquiry. Now the misconduct of the year is 1994 and more than 28 years have already lapsed, as such no fruitful purpose will serve by remanding back the matter. Therefore, this court is examining whether removal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to misconduct or not. Now the misconduct of the year is 1994 and more than 28 years have already lapsed, as such no fruitful purpose will serve by remanding back the matter. Therefore, this court is examining whether removal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to misconduct or not. The petitioner was terminated on 15.03.1995 and was charge-sheeted for absentism from 16.03.1993 to 21.09.1994 as such misconduct may be grievous in nature but it does not involve moral turpitude or assault or abusing the Senior Officer and record of the case would demonstrate that the petitioner has shown reasons for his absence as he has life threat which was not rebutted by the respondent in the return filed before this Court, thus, the termination order dated 15/22.03.1995 (Annexure - P/2) deserves to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. 22. The petitioner in the writ petition nowhere pleaded that he was not in gainful employment which is required to be proved by the petitioner to claim back wages as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Chand versus Management of Delhi Transport Corporation in Civil Appeal No. 4208 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7137/2016) decided on 05.07.2023, which reads as under:- “7. The only question before us is whether the Labour Court was justified in denying relief of back wages. In the case of National Gandhi Museum v. Sudhir Sharma1, this Court held that the fact whether an employee after dismissal from service was gainfully employed is something which is within his special knowledge. Considering the principle incorporated in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the initial burden is on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed after the order of termination. It is a negative burden. However, in what manner the employee can discharge the said burden will depend upon on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer.” 23. It all depends on the pleadings and evidence on record. Since, it is a negative burden, in a given case, an assertion on oath by the employee that he was unemployed, may be sufficient compliance in the absence of any positive material brought on record by the employer.” 23. Considering the above state factual and legal submission the termination order was passed in the year 1995, therefore, it is directed that the petitioner will be reinstated in service without back wages but his pay will be fixed notionally, he will be entitled to get gratuity and all other services benefits permissible under rules of company as he has attained the age of superannuation during pendency of writ petition, his services will be counted for grant of pensionary benefits under the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act applicable to the petitioner. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 25. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.