Employee's continuous unauthorized absence for over five years constitutes deemed resignation.

The applicant, Sri Rangaswamy R, was initially appointed as a Technician in 1982 and absorbed into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in 2000.

He was promoted to Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) and posted to Srirangapatna.

On December 26, 2014, he was transferred from Srirangapatna to Nagamangala, a lower post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (SDE), for administrative exigencies.

He was relieved from Srirangapatna on January 1, 2015, with instructions to report to Nagamangala but did not do so.

The applicant claimed he was under medical treatment and submitted leave applications but was denied the opportunity to report for duty at Srirangapatna on November 26, 2015.

The respondents issued a paper publication on January 2, 2015, alleging unauthorized absence.

The applicant denied this through representations dated March 3, 2016, and March 4, 2016, but did not report for duty.

Charge sheets sent to his last known address were returned with remarks of "addressee absent regularly".

A final notice was served on May 25, 2021, giving him 10 days to appear, failing which disciplinary action, including deemed resignation, would be taken.

Another paper publication was issued on June 2, 2021.

The applicant attempted to join duty on June 29, 2021, but by then, Respondent No. 1 had issued an order on June 25, 2021, invoking Rule 12(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, imposing deemed resignation with effect from January 2, 2015, for unauthorized absence exceeding five years, denying retirement benefits.

The applicant's appeal to Respondent No. 2 was rejected.

Whether the impugned order of deemed resignation issued by the competent authority, applying Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, without retirement benefits, and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, was justifiable?

Whether the respondents provided a "reasonable opportunity" to the applicant as required by the proviso to Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, before invoking the deemed resignation provision?

The court primarily applied Rule 12(2) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which states that a government servant continuously absent from duty for more than five years, other than on foreign service, with or without leave, "shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service," provided a "reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to that Government servant".

The court also referred to BSNL Circular/Letter dated May 3, 2021, which clarified that BSNL employees absconding or continuously absent for over five years without approved leave would be dealt with under Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, ensuring due notice and public notice through newspapers before issuing an order for deemed resignation without retirement benefits.

Additionally, the court acknowledged the principle from *Babu Verghese and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.*, stating that an act must be done in the manner prescribed by statute.

The court found that the applicant was continuously absent from duty without authorization from January 2, 2015, after being relieved from Srirangapatna to report to Nagamangala, a transfer order he did not challenge.

Despite the applicant's claim of medical treatment, his attempt to report to Srirangapatna on November 26, 2015, and subsequent reports to the Assistant General Manager (Admin), Mandya, were not considered valid as Nagamangala was his designated reporting place.

The court highlighted that the respondents had issued multiple notices, including two newspaper publications (March 1, 2016, and June 2, 2021) and a final notice on May 25, 2021, explicitly informing the applicant about the impending disciplinary action, including deemed resignation, if he failed to appear within 10 days.

The applicant admitted receiving the final notice.

The court concluded that these actions constituted a "reasonable opportunity" as required by the proviso to Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, and the BSNL circular.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that an inquiry under the BSNL Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 2006, was mandatory, stating that Rule 12(2) could be invoked even after a charge memo was issued, particularly given the prolonged unauthorized absence and the instructions in the BSNL circular regarding such cases.

The court also distinguished applicant's reliance on cases concerning disproportionate punishment, finding them inapplicable to the present issue of deemed resignation under Rule 12.

The court found that the respondents had provided a "reasonable opportunity" to the applicant in terms of Rule 12(2) and its proviso, thereby justifying the invocation of the deemed resignation provision due to continuous unauthorized absence exceeding five years.

The applicant was deemed to have resigned from BSNL service with effect from January 2, 2015, and was not entitled to any retirement benefits.