1. Employment termination — Long absence following transfer — Dispute over requirement of show cause notice under service regulations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
Mafatlal Narandas Barot, Appellant
Versus
J. D. Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport Mehsana and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 757 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. Gopalkrishnan, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.
Termination of a permanent employee for misconduct, including absence without leave, requires adherence to service regulations and principles of natural justice, specifically providing a charge sheet and a reasonable opportunity to show cause before the penalty is imposed.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Service Regulations - Regulation 61 and Schedule A, Clauses 38, 40 and 4(b) - Termination of service for long absence - Misconduct - Requirement of show cause notice - Where services of a permanent employee were terminated on the ground of long absence without framing any charges or providing an opportunity to show cause - Absence without leave and failure to report for duty are classified as acts of misconduct under the regulations - Clause 4(b) specifically mandates providing a copy of the charges and statement of allegations to the employee - Termination cannot be automatic even for absence without leave - Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause contravenes the regulations and principles of natural justice. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to be heard - An employee is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause, which includes the right to deny guilt and establish innocence, which can only be exercised when the charges and allegations are known. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A permanent employee of a statutory corporation was transferred to another depot. The employee applied for leave and subsequently for an extension on medical grounds, which was refused. Despite intimating continued illness with a medical certificate, the employee's services were terminated on the ground of long absence. No charge was framed, and no enquiry was conducted. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine.
Findings of Court:
The order of termination is bad in law as it contravenes the specific provisions of the service regulations and the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the employee was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment as required by the service regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: Since irregular attendance and absence without leave are defined as misconduct under the regulations, the authority is obligated to provide the employee with a copy of the charges and a statement of allegations before taking action. Automatic removal from service without such opportunity is impermissible.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether termination for absence was a punishment requiring a show cause notice or a simple termination with pay in lieu of notice. (Para 8 )
3. Absence without leave constitutes misconduct under regulations, necessitating a formal charge and reasonable opportunity to show cause before removal from service. (Para 11 , 12 )
4. Termination for misconduct cannot be automatic; it requires providing the employee with specific charges and a reasonable opportunity to show cause. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Order of dismissal quashed via writ of certiorari; respondent permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry following due process. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does absence without leave or failure to report for duty constitute misconduct under the Corporation's regulations?
Yes, under Regulations 38 and 40, irregular attendance, absence without leave and without reasonable cause, and failure without sufficient cause to report for duty when directed are classified as acts of misconduct. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. Is a permanent employee entitled to a show cause notice before termination for misconduct?
Yes, Clause 4(b) of the Regulations makes it obligatory for the authority to provide the employee with a copy of the charges and a statement of allegations, granting a reasonable opportunity to show cause. (Para 11 , 12 )
8. Can an employee be automatically removed from service for long absence without a formal enquiry?
No, removal from service for absence without leave cannot be automatic. The employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to deny guilt and establish innocence by knowing the specific charges and allegations. (Para 12 )
Judgement
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dated May 28, 1963, dismissing in limine an application filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
2. The facts material for the purposes of this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant was a permanent employee of the State Transport Corporation, Gujarat, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. At the material time he was employed as a Writer in the Visnagar Depot of the Corporation in Mehasana District. On January15, 1962, the appellant applied to the Divisional Controller, State Transport, Mehasana for leave for 15 days on the ground that he had to attend to his personal work . On January 16, 1962, he was transferred from Visnagar to Ambaji where there was a vacancy in the office of the Depot Manager. On 31-1-1962, a formal order transferring the appellant from Visnagar to Ambaji was passed and he was directed to join duty at Ambaji.
3. On that date, the appellant applied for extension of leave on medical grounds but his request was refused by an order, dated February 15, 1962. He was directed to report for duty at Ambaji within 48 hours of the receipt of notice failing which, he was warned, he would be removed from service. On March 3, 1962, the appellant wrote a letter to the Divisional Controller intimating him of his liability to join duty as he was still not well; to this letter, he enclosed a medical certificate.
4. By an order, dated March 9, 1962, the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from January 16, 1962, on the ground of long absence. The appellant made a representation to the Divisional Controller on March 17, 1962 and thereafter preferred an appeal to the General Manager of the Corporation. Both of them were rejected. A further appeal preferred by him to the appellate Committee was also unsuccessful. The Committee held that the leave applications of the appellant were made only with a view to evade joining duty at Ambaji.
5. The appellant applied to the High Court of Gujarat under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, impleading the Divisional Controller as respondent, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of dismissal. His petition was dismissed in limine on May 28, 1963. On June 17, 1963, the appellant applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court but it was refused. Thereafter, he applied for special leave and that was granted by this Court.
6. It may be stated at the outset that the respondent is an autonomous statutory Corporation formed under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. It is not disputed that the appellant could not invoke the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
7. The short question for determination in the appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment as required by regulation No. 61 of the Regulations which governs the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. It is admitted that no charge was framed against him nor was he given an opportunity to show cause.
8. It is contended for the respondent that though the order of termination referred to long absence as the cause of termination, the termination itself was not by way of punishment and the only right of the appellant was to two months pay in lieu of notice under regulation No. 61, that assuming that the termination was by way of punishment, the appellant, as would be evident from the correspondence and the circumstances of the case, had been given an opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in substance compliance with the rules of natural justice.
9. We may, at this stage, read the relevant regulations which admittedly govern the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. Regulation No. 61 provides as follows :
"The services of an employees, who does not hold a permanent appointment in State Transport or
