Back
1999(7) Supreme 274
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution -Appellant
versus
The Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3391 of 1990
Decided on 20-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rajesh Mahale, Advocate, P. Mahale, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 : Kh. Nobin Singh, Advocate, M. Veerappa, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : R.S. Hegde, Advocate, S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate.
Held : It cannot be said on the facts and circumstances of this case that there was any violation of any principle of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was given to her. The said matrix of facts reveal, on the contrary, which is also not in dispute that respondent No. 2 in spite of her earlier application for leave for seeking permission for doing Ph.D. course which is for three years being rejected, she in spite of this under the garb of leave for doing M.Phil course for one year and on such leave, without seeking any fresh permission from the appellant got herself registered for Ph.D. course. This apart, admittedly, she even violated conditions of her leave for which she filed an affidavit, i.e., if she does not get admission in M.Phil course by 31st July, 1978, she would re-join the services which she did not do. The facts speak for itself. It is also clear from record the appellant gave opportunity to her. On these facts, the order of termination passed by the appellant cannot be said to be illegal. (Para 7)
Giving of opportunity or an enquiry of course is a check and balance concept that no one’s right be taken away without giving him/her opportunity or without enquiry in a given case or where statute require. But this cannot be in a case where allegation and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations? When she admitted she did not join M.Phil course, she did not report back to her duty which is against her condition of leave and contrary to her affidavit which is the charge, what enquiry was to be made? In a case where facts are almost admitted, the case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of record, and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming as in the present case, it would not be a fit case to interfere with termination order. This is a case where respondent No.2, acted clearly in violation of her own undertaking against her condition of leave and in spite of information to her by the appellant to return to duty she did not which clearly depicts a picture that termination order cannot be held to be invalid. (Paras 8 & 9)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves an appeal against the order of the High Court of Karnataka, which had upheld the decision of the Educational Appellate Tribunal to set aside the termination of a lecturer's services by a private educational institution (!) .
The appellant institution argued that the lecturer was granted leave under specific conditions, which she subsequently violated by registering for a different higher studies course and failing to rejoin her duties as agreed (!) (!) .
The lecturer had applied for and was granted leave for a particular course with the understanding that she would return to duty if she did not get admission in her preferred course. However, she did not comply with the conditions, including failing to register for the course she initially intended and not returning to duty after her leave expired (!) (!) (!) .
The institution issued notices and show-cause notices to the lecturer, directing her to join back her duties, which she did not do, and she expressed her inability to rejoin. Despite this, the institution took steps to verify her registration status and issued further notices, culminating in her termination (!) (!) (!) .
The lecturer challenged her termination, claiming that no proper enquiry was conducted and that her rights to natural justice were violated. The Tribunal initially set aside her termination, but the High Court later confirmed that the institution had provided sufficient opportunity and that the termination was justified based on her admitted violations (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that when charges and allegations are admitted, and there is no dispute over the facts, a formal enquiry is unnecessary. The record showed that the lecturer admitted the violations, and her failure to rejoin was clear evidence supporting the institution's decision (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the institution had given ample opportunity and had considered her explanations. The order of termination was therefore upheld as valid and legal (!) .
The court further noted that the order of termination did not carry any stigma and was purely an order of dismissal, not affecting her future employment prospects beyond the immediate case (!) .
The appeal filed by the institution was allowed, and the previous orders setting aside the termination were reversed, affirming the validity of the termination decision (!) .
Overall, the case underscores that in employment disputes, especially where the employee admits to violations, a formal enquiry may not be necessary, provided that the employer has given sufficient opportunity and followed due process in accordance with statutory provisions (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
Judgment
Misra, J.-This appeal is directed against revisional order passed by the High Court of Karnataka on 25th September, 1989 confirming the order dated 13th February, 1980, passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control), Act of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1975 Act’) which allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the order dated 26th February, 1979 terminating her services w.e.f. 28th February, 1979. The appellant institution is a private educational institution conducting a junior college. The second respondent was appointed as a lecturer in Chemistry in the said institution on 5th June, 1973. She applied for grant of leave for proceeding her higher studies which was granted subject to her giving a declaration that after expiry of the leave if she fails to resume her duties, the authorities shall be entitled to terminate her services. The case of the appellant is that though an extraordinary leave was granted for specified course with certain conditions but respondent No. 2 neither went for the course for which she obtained the leave nor joined back her duties in spite of the reminder and hence after due notice to respondent No. 2 and after receipt of her reply and after giving due consideration to it not finding it satisfactory, terminated her services on 26th February, 1979. It is this order which was challenged before the said Tribunal in appeal in which her termination order was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Civil Revision in the High Court. The High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal by holding neither any enquiry was held nor any opportunity was provided to the second respondent to establish that she had not stayed away willfully. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant’s case is that on 27th May, 1978 respondent No. 2 wrote a letter to the Principal of the college seeking leave to register her name for Ph.D course and also for sanction of leave for three years from 17th June, 1978. This application was examined by the Board of management and after careful consideration rejected it. Thereafter, another application dated 16th June, 1978 was made by respondent No. 2 for extraordinary leave for a period of one year to enable her to do M.Phil for which the prescribed duration is one year. The Board of management after considering her second application granted her the extraordinary leave for one year, on two main conditions that she makes a declaration on affidavit that she would join her services at the end of the said leave period. It was on submission of such an affidavit the aforesaid leave was granted for one year w.e.f. 27th June, 1978. The second condition was that she should register herself for M.Phil course and confirm this registration by or before 31st July, 1978. As a fact she did not join M.Phil course but contrary to the condition of leave, which was for M.Phil course, she got herself registered for Ph.D course. As per the undertaking, she was to get herself register with the Calicut University for M.Phil course and send a copy of this registration to the appellant institution, on or before 31st July, 1978, failing which she was to return back and join her services by 10 A.M. on 16th August, 1978. Admittedly, this registration was not sent by the said date nor she returned back to join her services in terms of the same. Then on 8th August, 1978 the appellant wrote a registered letter to respondent No. 2 directing her to join her services by 16th August, 1978. This letter though was acknowledged by her, she did not join back. Rather she wrote on 12th August, 1978 expressing her inability to join her duties.
3. Thereafter, the appellant sought confirmation from the Registrar of the said University regarding the registration of respondent No. 2 for the said course. The Registrar through his letter dated 24th August, 1978 infor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
