JUDGMENT, J. N. UNNI KRISHNAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 9. 2. The challenge in the present proceeding, is to an order, dated 30-05- 2014, passed by the Head of Project, General Manager(C), NEEPCO Ltd., TrHEP, Tuirial, Mizoram, terminating the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 14-01-2013. 3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under: The petitioner, herein, had joined the services of the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [for short ‘respondent Corporation’ for short], as a Khalasi, on 10-02-1982. The petitioner, in course of his service, was posted at different establishments of the respondent Corporation. It is projected in the writ petition that since the year 1994; the petitioner, herein, was suffering from degenerative nerve disorder and the same having aggravated, he was in the year 2019, diagnosed to have been suffering from thoracic lumbar vertebrae spine spondilytis and was under treatment. The petitioner while serving at the Tuirial Hydroelectric Project of the respondent Corporation situated in the Kolasib District of Mizoram; had applied for 2(two) days casual leave and had left the office on 14-01-2013. The petitioner, thereafter, did not resume his services. The petitioner, on 10-05-2013, 17-06-2013 and 15-07-2013, had forwarded unsigned letters requesting his controlling Officer for extension of his leave on account of the ailments suffered by him. Such communications not having as its enclosures: the medical certificates; the respondent authorities in response to his letter, dated 13.05.2013, had required the petitioner to communicate anything regarding further extension of his leave, or, to resume his duties. The petitioner, had, thereafter, submitted a letter, dated 15-07-2013, seeking extension of his leave. Such communications not having as its enclosures: the medical certificates; the respondent authorities in response to his letter, dated 13.05.2013, had required the petitioner to communicate anything regarding further extension of his leave, or, to resume his duties. The petitioner, had, thereafter, submitted a letter, dated 15-07-2013, seeking extension of his leave. In the above circumstance, the respondent Corporation, vide communication, dated 18-11-2013, by recording that the petitioner was in the habit of sending unsigned request letters without any date seeking extension of his leave by adducing the cause of absence as due to back pain and thereby, staying absent, which was viewed seriously by the competent authority; proceeded to require the petitioner to resume his services within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which, appropriate disciplinary action as may be deemed fit, shall be initiated against him in accordance with the certified standing orders of the Corporation. The said communication was followed by a further communication, dated 05-12-2023, wherein, the petitioner was again required to report for duties within 15 days from the date of issuance of the letter, failing which, it was held that disciplinary action including the process for termination of his service as per the provisions of the certified standing orders of the Corporation; would be initiated against him, by treating his willful absence from duty to be voluntary abandonment of service and that his name would be stuck-off from the rules of the Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, not having resumed his services and no response made by him to the notices issued to him; the authorities of the Corporation issued a Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, to the petitioner and the same came to be published in the news dailies “Assam Tribune” and “Asomiya Pratidin” in its issues, dated 22-01-2014, for removal of the petitioner from service. In the said Notice, it was stated that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties with effect from 14- 01-2013 and several communications were issued to him, at his home address by way of registered post, requiring resumption by him of his duties. In the said Notice, it was stated that the petitioner had remained unauthorisedly absent from his duties with effect from 14- 01-2013 and several communications were issued to him, at his home address by way of registered post, requiring resumption by him of his duties. However, the petitioner, herein, not having responded to the communications and having not resumed his duties, 15 days further time was granted to him with effect from the date of publication in the newspaper of the Notice to resume his services, failing which, it was held that it will be presumed that he was not interested in serving the Corporation and had abandoned his service at his own and that his name would be struck-off from the roll of the Corporation. It was further stipulated in the said Public Notice, dated 07.01.2014, that no further correspondence would be entertained in this connection. The petitioner, herein, having not responded to the said Public Notice, dated 07.01.2014, published in the news dailies on 22-01-2014; the competent authority of the Corporation accorded approval of the termination of the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, a Public Notice, dated 30-05-2014, was issued, wherein, it was concluded that the absence of the petitioner from service, amounted to voluntary abandonment by him of his service with the Corporation. Further, in terms of the Notice, dated 07-01-2014, published in the news dailies on 22-01-2014; the services of the petitioner was terminated and he was declared to be not an employee of the Corporation with effect from 14- 01-2013. The said Public Notice, dated 30-05-2014, was published in the news daily ‘Assam Tribune’ in its issue, dated 31-05-2014, and also, in the vernacular news daily ‘Asomiya Pratidin’, in its issue, dated 01-06-2014. A copy of the said Public Notice, dated 30-05-2014, along with a communication, dated 30-05-2014, was also issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the said Public Notice, dated 07.01.2014, was issued to him only on 04-06-2014, i.e. after the termination of his services, were so effected by the order of termination of his services, dated 30-05-2014. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination of his services, dated 30-05-2014; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 5. Mr. The petitioner contends that the said Public Notice, dated 07.01.2014, was issued to him only on 04-06-2014, i.e. after the termination of his services, were so effected by the order of termination of his services, dated 30-05-2014. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination of his services, dated 30-05-2014; the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 5. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner was suffering from thoracic lumbar spondylitis and depressed vertebral space, for which, he was not in a position to undertake any journey by bus and the doctor attending him, had required the petitioner to do light duty. It is contended that the petitioner had requested the authorities of the Corporation, to transfer him to an establishment of the Corporation situated in Guwahati, way back in the year 2007. However, the respondent authorities, ignoring such a request of the petitioner; had posted him to the project in Kolasib District of Mizoram. It is also contended that although the petitioner had joined against his transferred post and had worked therein, however, on account of the severity of his illness; he had to leave his place of work on 14-01-2013 after submitting an application for casual leave for 2(two) days. 6. Mr. Borah, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner, from time to time, had sent communications to the respondent authorities praying for extension of his leave. However, such communications were unsigned, inasmuch as, the petitioner, at that relevant point of time, was not in a position even to sign the said communications. The learned counsel, by referring to the communication, dated 10-07-2013, issued by the authorities of the respondent Corporation, wherein, they had sought information from the petitioner as to whether he was intending to further extend his leave, or, to resume his service; has submitted that the respondent authorities of the respondent Corporation had also appreciated that the petitioner was suffering from an ailment which had the effect of preventing him from resuming his duties at his place of work situated in Kolasib District in the State of Mizoram. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the communication, dated 05-12-2013, issued by the respondent authorities requiring the petitioner to resume his services, was received by him, but, on account of the ailments suffered by him, at that relevant point of time; the petitioner was not in a position to respond thereto. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was scheduled to retire from his services on 31-05-2014, on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Notices, dated 07-01-2014, issued by the authorities of the respondent Corporation in the News Dailies i.e. Assam Tribune and Asomiya Pratidin, in its issues, dated 22-01-2014, was not seen by the petitioner, inasmuch as, he resides in a remote area of the State of Assam and was bed-ridden at that relevant point of time on account of the ailments suffered by him. 8. Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the petitioner having served the Corporation for around 3(three) decades, there was no reason as to why the petitioner would have remained away from his duties, but, for the situation arising, requiring him to remain away from his duties on account of his ailments. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Notices, dated 07-01-2014, admittedly, having not been forwarded to the petitioner by way of a registered post with A/D and the same only having been published in the Newspapers; the same could not have been made the basis for issuance of termination order in respect of the petitioner, herein. 9. In support of his submissions, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 569 and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that the Show Cause Notices cannot also be treated to have been served on a delinquent when such service is sought to be effected by way of publication in a newspaper without making any effort to serve on him personally by tendering the Show Cause Notice, either, through the office Peon, or, by registered post. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is nothing available on record to demonstrate that the Notice, dated 07-01-2014, was so attempted to be served upon the petitioner through the office Peon, and/or, by way of registered post. 10. Mr. Boah, learned counsel, by referring to the NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules, more particularly, the provisions therein, in clause 7.16, submits that in case of an employee remaining unauthorisedly absent; it would be open to the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against him. However, the respondent authorities, by ignoring the said provision, had taken recourse to the provisions of clause 7.17, which authorizes the authorities of the Corporation to terminate the services of an employee who remains unauthorisedly absent from duty for more than 10 consecutive days without any intimation after requiring him to resume his service by way of issuance of a notice to him and in case, within 8 days of issue of such notice, he does not resume his duties, the employee concerned, shall be deemed to have left the service of the Corporation on his own accord and his name would be liable to be struck-off from the roll of the Corporation with effect from the date of such absence, automatically. The learned counsel has further submitted that the said provisions of clause 7.17, cannot be applied without complying with the principles of natural justice. 11. Mr. Borah, learned counsel, has submitted that the order, dated 31- 05-2014, being so issued in pursuance of the Notice, dated 07-01-2014; the Notice, dated 07-01-2014, having, admittedly, not being served on the petitioner, at his home address; the impugned action on the part of the respondent Corporation in proceeding to terminate his services by issuance of the Public Notice, dated 31-05-2014, by construing him to have abandoned his service, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court and the order, dated 31-05-2014, would call for an interference from this Court. 12. Mr. Borah, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner having already superannuated from his services with effect from 31-05- 2014; the pension and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, would be required to be directed to be released to him by the authorities of the respondent Corporation. 13. Per contra, Mr. 12. Mr. Borah, learned counsel, has further submitted that the petitioner having already superannuated from his services with effect from 31-05- 2014; the pension and pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, would be required to be directed to be released to him by the authorities of the respondent Corporation. 13. Per contra, Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondent NEEPCO Ltd., by taking this Court, through the steps taken by the authorities of the Corporation before issuance of the order, dated 30-05-2014, terminating the services of the petitioner, herein, has submitted that the petitioner had left his station on 14-01-2013 and thereafter, had not resumed his services, rather, the petitioner had only issued unsigned letters from time to time seeking extension of his leave. 14. Mr. Senapati, by referring to the provisions of clause 7.17 of the NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules, has submitted that the same authorizes the authorities of the Corporation to terminate the services of an employee who had remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 10 consecutive days without intimation after a notice, in this connection, was issued to him. The learned counsel has further submitted that the authorities of the respondent Corporation by invoking the said powers under clause 7.17, issued a Notice to the petitioner on 18-11-2013 and therein, had categorically stated that in the event, the petitioner does not resume his duties within 15 days from the date of issue of the said Notice, appropriate disciplinary action as may be deemed fit, shall be initiated against him in accordance with the certified standing orders of the respondent Corporation. The learned counsel has also submitted that the said Notice, dated 18-11-2013, was followed by the Notice, dated 05-12- 2013, on the same lines. The Notices, dated 18-11-2013 and 505-12-2013, were acknowledged by the petitioner to have been received by him. However, the petitioner, neither, submitted any response, nor, joined his duties. Accordingly, a Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, was issued by the respondent Corporation and the same was published in Daily Newspapers i.e. ‘Assam Tribune’ and ‘Asomiya Pratidin’ in its issues, dated 22-01-2014. The learned counsel has submitted that the said course of action was requisite to be undertaken, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not responded to the Notices, dated 18-11-2013 and 05-12-2013, respectively. 15. It is further submitted by Mr. The learned counsel has submitted that the said course of action was requisite to be undertaken, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not responded to the Notices, dated 18-11-2013 and 05-12-2013, respectively. 15. It is further submitted by Mr. Senapati, learned counsel, that the petitioner not having responded to the Notices dated 07-01-2014 published in the said News Dailies on 22-01-2014; the competent authority having accorded approval for the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 14-01-2013, the Public Notice, dated 30-05-2014, came to be issued in the matter. The learned counsel has submitted that the Notice, dated 30-05-2014, was published by the ‘Assam Tribune’ in its issue, dated 31-05-2014 and in the ‘Asomiya Pratidin’, in its issues dated 01-06-2014. 16. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel, has submitted that publication of the order of termination of the service of the petitioner, dated 30-05-2014, in the said News Dailies, satisfies the requirement of communication of such orders to the petitioner and accordingly, the same having been so published before the superannuation of the petitioner occasioning on 31-05-2014; the same would not mandate an interference from this Court. 17. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the order of termination of the service of the petitioner, dated 30-05-2014, was communicated to the petitioner only after 31-05-2014, Mr. Senapati, learned counsel, has submitted that the same having been published in the News Daily ‘Assam Tribune’ in its issue, dated 31-05-2014; the actual date of service of notice upon the petitioner by way of registered post would be of no consequence. 18. In the above premises, Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, has submitted that the action taken by the respondent authorities in terminating the services of the petitioner on account of his unauthorised absence, being so done strictly in accordance with the provisions existing in this connection in the standing certified orders of the Corporation; such action would not mandate any interference from this Court. 19. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 20. It is an admitted position that the petitioner after having left his place of duty at Mizoram on 14-01-2013, by applying for 2(two) days casual leave, had not resumed his services. 19. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 20. It is an admitted position that the petitioner after having left his place of duty at Mizoram on 14-01-2013, by applying for 2(two) days casual leave, had not resumed his services. The petitioner, herein, had contended that he was prevented from resuming his services on account of the ailments suffered by him, but, on the other hand, the respondents have disputed the said position by stating that the petitioner had not brought on record, any material to show that he was actually suffering from such ailments which had the effect of preventing him from resuming his duties. It is seen from the materials brought on record that after the petitioner had left his place of duty by applying for 2(two) days casual leave, the petitioner had sent communications, dated 10-05-2013, 17-06-2013 as well as communication, dated 15-07-2013, wherein, he had, by referring to his back pain and the fact that he was under medical treatment; had prayed for extension of his leave for some days. The said letters issued by the petitioner, admittedly, were not signed by him. 21. The stand taken by the petitioner, in the present proceeding, is that he was not in a position to even sign the said letters in view of the ailments suffered by him. On receipt of the said letters, the respondent Corporation vide communication, dated 10-07-2013, had intimated the petitioner that his application, dated 13-05-2013, for extension of leave on medical ground, was received. However, the petitioner having not further communicated regarding any further extension of his leave, or that, he would be resuming his duties; accordingly, the petitioner was requested to intimate his status at the earliest, otherwise, the same was contended to be reported to the higher authority for his replacement and for taking further course of action as per norms of the Corporation. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted a communication, dated 15-07-2013, wherein, again reiterating that he was receiving medical treatment for his back pain, was not in a position to attend his duties regularly, so, he prayed for extension of his leave for some days. The said communication was also unsigned by the petitioner and the same was received by the authorities of the respondent Corporation on 01-08-2013. The said communication was also unsigned by the petitioner and the same was received by the authorities of the respondent Corporation on 01-08-2013. The authorities of the respondent Corporation, thereafter, did not initiate any action against the petitioner till issuance of the communication, dated 18-11-2013, wherein, by projecting that he had not resumed his services after proceeding for casual leave for 2(two) days with effect from 14-01-2013; it was highlighted that the petitioner was in the habit of sending unsigned request letters without any date seeking extension of his leave by adducing the cause of absence as back pain. Accordingly, the petitioner was required to report for his duties within 15 days from the date of issue of the letter, failing which, appropriate disciplinary action as may be deemed fit, was stated to be initiated against him in accordance with the certified standing orders of the respondent Corporation. The said letter was again followed by a further communication, dated 05-12-2013, on the same lines. The authorities of the respondent Corporation, thereafter, had not taken any step in the matter for initiating any proceeding thereon against the petitioner, herein. The authorities of the respondent Corporation, on 07-01-2014, issued a Public Notice to the petitioner and the notice was for his removal from service. 22. The said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, being relevant for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding; the same is extracted hereinbelow: “ NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (A Govt. of India Enterprise) TUIRIAL HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT Tuirial, Dist: Kolasib, Mizoram: 796101 OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF PROJECT PUBLIC NOTICE 07th January, 2014 To, Shri Dinesh Ch. Sarmah, C/o. Late Gada Dhar Sarmah, Village:- Karara, P.O.- Karara, P.S. Baihata Charali, Dist: Kamrup, Assam. Sub: Notice of Removal from Service of North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. You are remaining absent unauthorisedly from your duties w.e.f. 14/01/2013. In this connection, please note that several letters have been sent to your home address through registered post pointing out about your unauthorized absence and provisions of the Rules under which it is a misconduct, and, asking you to resume your duties within 15 days, as work of the Corporation are hampered. But you have neither responded nor resumed your duties. But you have neither responded nor resumed your duties. Since reasonable opportunity has been given to you to report for duties, this notice is being published for the last time asking you once again to report for duties within 15 Days from the date of publication in the news paper, failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested in serving this Corporation and abandoned your service at your own and your name will be struck off from the rolls of the Corporation and no further correspondence will be entertained thereafter. Sd/- (R.B. Sharma) Head of Project, GM (C) NEEPCO Lt. TrHEP, Tuirial, Mizoram” 23. A perusal of the said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, would go to reveal that the respondent Corporation had held that the petitioner, herein, was issued with repeated communications sent to his home address through registered post, highlighting about his unauthorised absence and the provisions of rules under which, it is a misconduct and the petitioner was asked to resume his services as the works of the Corporation were being hampered. It was further highlighted that the petitioner had, neither, responded, nor, resumed his duties. Accordingly, it was concluded that since a reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to report for his duties, the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, was published for the last time, asking him to once again report for duties within 15 days from the date of publication in the Newspaper, failing which, it was stipulated that it would be presumed that he was not interested to serve the respondent Corporation and had abandoned his service at his own accord. It was also stipulated in the said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, that his name would be stuck-off from the roll of the Corporation and no further correspondence will be entertained thereafter. 24. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the present proceeding, would go to highlight that the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, was so issued by invoking the powers under Clause 7.17 of the NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules. The provisions of Clause 7.17, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ If any employee unauthorisedly absents himself from duty for more than ten consecutive days without any intimation, a notice shall be issued to him, directing him to report for duty forthwith and in any case not beyond eight days after the issue of the notice. The provisions of Clause 7.17, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow: “ If any employee unauthorisedly absents himself from duty for more than ten consecutive days without any intimation, a notice shall be issued to him, directing him to report for duty forthwith and in any case not beyond eight days after the issue of the notice. If he does not resume duty within such period the employee shall be deemed to have left the service of the Corporation on his own accord and his name shall be struck off from the rolls of the Corporation with effect from the date of such absence, automatically.” 25. A perusal of the provisions of Clause 7.17 of the said NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules of the Corporation, would go to reveal that in the event, any employee absents himself from duty for more than 10 consecutive days without any intimation, a notice shall be issued to him directing him to report for duties forthwith. In case, the concerned employee does not resume his duties within 8 days after issuance of the notice, he shall be deemed to have left the service of the Corporation on his own accord and his name shall be stuck-off from the roll of the Corporation with effect from the date of such absence automatically. 26. In the context of the present proceeding, the Public Notice, dated 07- 01-2014, can be construed to be a Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner, herein, intimating him about the intention of the authorities of the Corporation to invoke the provisions of Clause 7.17 of the said NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules for termination of his services in view of his unauthorised absence for more than 10 consecutive day, in-as-much as, termination of his service was so done in pursuance, thereof. The provisions of Clause 7.17 having mandated that any action, thereunder, shall only be permissible to be taken in the event, the concerned employee does not resume his services within 8 days from the date of issue of the notice; it is to be now examined as to whether the publication of the Notice, dated 07-01-2014 as a Public Notice in the News Papers on 22-01- 2014, would satisfy the requirement of issuance of a notice to the petitioner, herein. 27. 27. In this connection, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), is noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said decision, with regard to the service of a charge sheet in a disciplinary proceeding, had drawn the following conclusion in Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision. The same being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow: “ 10. Where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge- sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. So also, when the show-cause notice is issued, the employee is called upon to submit his reply to the action proposed to be taken against him. Since in both the situations, the employee is given an opportunity to submit his reply, the theory of "communication" cannot be invoked and "actual service" must be proved and established. It has already been found that neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar. Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated.” 28. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), on being applied to the facts of the present case; it is to be noted that the authorities of the respondent Corporation, have not established the fact that the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, was actually served upon the petitioner, herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having held that the theory of communication, in such circumstances, cannot be invoked and it is the actual service that is to be proved and established, the authorities of the respondent Corporation, in the present proceeding; having not established the fact that the petitioner was actually served with the copy of the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014; this Court is of the considered view that the action in pursuance of the said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, could not have been initiated against the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Clause 7.17 of the NEEPCO Personal Manual Leave Rules. 29. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now examine the order, dated 30-05-2014. The said order, dated 30-05-2014, being relevant to the issues arising in the present case, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “ NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (A Govt. 29. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court would now examine the order, dated 30-05-2014. The said order, dated 30-05-2014, being relevant to the issues arising in the present case, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “ NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LTD. (A Govt. of India Enterprise) TUIRIAL HYDRO ELECTRIC PROJECT Tuirial, Dist: Kolasib, Mizoram: 796101 OFFICE OF THE HEAD OF PROJECT PUBLIC NOTICE 30th May, 2014 To, Shri Dinesh Ch. Sarmah, C/o. Late Gada Dhar Sarmah, Village:- Karara, P.O.- Karara, P.S. Baihata Charali, Dist: Kamrup, Assam. SUB: NOTICE FOR REMOVAL FROM SERVICE Several letters were sent to you, and finally, by Press Notification published in "Assam Tribune and Asomiya Pratidin" on 22/01/2014, you were asked once again to report for duties within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of publication in the News Paper. But you have neither resumed duty nor sent any communication and continued to remain absent unauthorisedly. Your above conduct and action confirms that you have voluntarily abandoned your service and are not interested at all to serve this Corporation. Please note that in the final notice published in the News Paper you were informed in clear terms that in case you fail to comply with the instruction to resume duty, your services will be terminated and your name will be struck off from the rolls of the Corporation on the expiry of time schedule mentioned therein. Therefore in the interest of works of the Corporation your services have been terminated and you are no more an employee of this Corporation with effect from 14th January, 2013 as decided by the Competent Authority. You may also note that in this regard no further correspondence will be entertained. Sd/- (R.B. Sharma) Head of Project, GM (C) NEEPCO Lt. TrHEP, Tuirial, Mizoram” 30. A perusal of the said order, dated 30-05-2014, terminating the services of the petitioner, herein, would go to reveal that the same was so done as a follow-up measure to the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, being published in the News Dailies i.e. ‘Assam Tribune’ and ‘Asomiya Pratidin’ proceeding in its issue, dated 22-01-2014. 31. TrHEP, Tuirial, Mizoram” 30. A perusal of the said order, dated 30-05-2014, terminating the services of the petitioner, herein, would go to reveal that the same was so done as a follow-up measure to the Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, being published in the News Dailies i.e. ‘Assam Tribune’ and ‘Asomiya Pratidin’ proceeding in its issue, dated 22-01-2014. 31. This Court, hereinabove, having concluded that the said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014, only, by its publication in the News Dailies on 22-01- 2014, it cannot be presumed that the same was duly served upon the petitioner, herein, the termination of the services of the petitioner being effected as a follow-up to the said Public Notice, dated 07-01-2014; this Court is of the considered view, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra), that the termination being so effected without a Notice being served upon the petitioner prior to the issuance of the same; the order, dated 30-05-2014, impugned in the present proceedings, stands vitiated. 32. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner, herein, admittedly, had remained unauthorisedly absent from his service with effect from 14-01-2014 and the materials placed on record, are not conclusive to determine that such absence of the petitioner was not willful. However, the petitioner having projected that he was suffering from ailments which prevented him from resuming his services; the respondent authorities not having negated such contention raised by the petitioner, by requiring him to appear before a Medical Board and/or instituting a disciplinary proceeding against him in the matter, wherein, it could have been ascertained as to whether the stand taken by the petitioner was a fact or not, this Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the present proceeding, has proceeded to draw the conclusions as drawn hereinabove. This Court has also considered the fact that the petitioner was in service of the respondent Corporation for nearly three decades and his termination had occasioned only on a date prior to his date of superannuation. 33. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions so reached by this Court; this Court, in the facts and circumstances arising in the present proceeding, proceeds to interfere with the order of termination of the petitioner, dated 30-05-2014, and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 34. 33. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions so reached by this Court; this Court, in the facts and circumstances arising in the present proceeding, proceeds to interfere with the order of termination of the petitioner, dated 30-05-2014, and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 34. Having interfered with the order of termination of the petitioner, dated 30-05-2014, the relief(s) that now the petitioner would be entitled to receive, is required to be examined. 35. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner, admittedly, had not resumed his services after proceeding on casual leave with effect from 14-01-2013. Accordingly, the petitioner can be construed to have not discharged his duties after 14-01-2013. The petitioner not having been in service with effect from 14-01-2013 till his superannuation occasioning on 31-05-2014; the petitioner, for the said period w.e.f. 14-01-2013 till 31-05-2014, would not be entitled to any salaries and allowances. 36. The order of termination having been interfered with and the petitioner, herein, being no longer in service, on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-05-2014; this Court directs the authorities of the respondent Corporation to compute the pension and pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner by ascertaining his qualifying service for the same, by reckoning the service rendered by him with effect from the date of his initial appointment till 14-01-2013 and to release to the petitioner, the same. The petitioner would be entitled to receive his pension on being so authorized by the respondent Corporation with effect from 01-06-2014. 37. The arrears for the pension and pensionary benefits now due to the petitioner, be so computed in terms of the directions passed hereinabove and released to the petitioner, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order by the authorities of the respondent Corporation. 38. The instant order having been so passed, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the present proceedings, this Court observes that the directions passed hereinabove, shall not be treated as a precedent. 39. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of.