Transfer orders and unauthorised absence: summary discharge upheld where the employee ignored duty directions and warning requirements were satisfied.

Transfer of a servant in a transferable post is an incident of service, so an employee has no right to insist on posting at one place and must comply unless the transfer is stayed or cancelled. Mere pendency of a representation does not excuse absence from duty. Under Service Regulation No. 113, summary discharge was permissible for continued absence or overstaying leave after warning, and the warning need not be in any particular form if it clearly conveys the consequence of non-compliance. Service of the registered notice was treated as proved on the postal endorsement, and the employee failed to rebut that presumption. The discharge was therefore upheld as a lawful consequence of unauthorised absence and disregard of the transfer order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's discharge from service under Service Regulation No. 113 was valid, including whether his failure to join the transferred posting amounted to unauthorised absence and whether the prescribed warning and opportunity requirement was satisfied.

Analysis: Transfer of a servant holding a transferable post is an incident of service, and there is no legal right to insist on posting at one particular place. If the transfer order is not stayed or cancelled, the employee must comply with it; mere pendency of a representation does not justify remaining absent from duty. Service Regulation No. 113 authorised summary discharge where an employee remained absent or overstayed leave and failed to return even after warning. The correspondence on record showed repeated directions to join duty, a show-cause notice referring to the breach of the regulation, and further reminders. The Court held that the warning contemplated by the regulation need not be in any particular form and that the letter dated 18 April 1974 was sufficient warning. It also held that service of the registered letter dated 24 April 1974 was proved by the postal endorsement and, in any event, the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of service with any material evidence. The plea of want of opportunity and violation of natural justice was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The discharge order under Service Regulation No. 113 was valid and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the writ petition was dismissed, with the discharge from service upheld as a lawful consequence of unauthorised absence and disobedience of the transfer order.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee holding a transferable post cannot lawfully remain absent on the ground of an unaccepted transfer representation, and a warning under a summary discharge regulation is sufficient if its substance clearly communicates the consequence of continued unauthorised absence.

---