Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 363
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.N.SASTRY, P.S.MISHRA
K.Subramanyam Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Venkateswara University, rep.by the Registrar, Tirupathi - Respondent
Decided On : 07-19-95
The principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
Headnote:
UNIVERSITY SERVICE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - AUTOMATIC TERMINATION RULE - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD - ARTICLE 21 - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 16 - ARTICLE 23 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - STUDY LEAVE - EXTENSION OF STUDY LEAVE - DELAY IN REJOINING DUTY - LACHES - WRIT PETITION - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 113 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SERVICE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES - RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE - CONTRACT OF SERVICE - STATUS BETWEEN EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE - GUARANTEES UNDER ARTICLES 14, 16, 21 AND 23 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - COMMON LAW RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES - STATE UNDER ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - DISCRETION OF HIGH COURT TO INTERFERE - RULE OF LACHES OR DELAY - EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF LACHES OR DELAY - GROSS VIOLATION OF STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND RULES - AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF SERVICE - UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE - MISCONDUCT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR PLAY IN ACTION - PROCEDURE ADOPTED MUST BE JUST, FAIR AND REASONABLE - RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY - RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD - FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH CASE - DOMESTIC INQUIRY - CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS - INITIATION OF PROCEEDING AGAINST APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer in Chemistry at Sri Venkateswara University, was granted study leave for two years to pursue post-doctoral studies in Switzerland. He sought and was granted two extensions of his leave. However, his request for a third extension was denied by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, who ordered him to report back to duty on a specific date, failing which his services would be terminated. The petitioner did not rejoin duty and the Vice-Chancellor issued an order terminating his services. The petitioner challenged the termination order in the High Court, which dismissed his petition on the ground of delay in filing the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor's order terminating the petitioner's services was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioner had been granted study leave and extensions of his leave by the competent authority, and that there was no evidence that he had engaged in any misconduct while on leave. The Court also held that the Vice-Chancellor's order requiring the petitioner to report back to duty on a specific date, without affording him an opportunity to explain his absence, was unfair and unreasonable. The Court further held that the petitioner's delay in filing his petition did not bar him from seeking relief, as the delay was not inordinate and the petitioner had a good case on the merits.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor's order terminating the petitioner's services was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the petitioner's delay in filing his petition barred him from seeking relief?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor's order terminating the petitioner's services was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice because: a. The petitioner had been granted study leave and extensions of his leave by the competent authority. b. There was no evidence that the petitioner had engaged in any misconduct while on leave. c. The Vice-Chancellor's order requiring the petitioner to report back to duty on a specific date, without affording him an opportunity to explain his absence, was unfair and unreasonable. 2. The Court held that the petitioner's delay in filing his petition did not bar him from seeking relief because: a. The delay was not inordinate. b. The petitioner had a good case on the merits.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Vice-Chancellor's order terminating the petitioner's services and directed the University to treat the petitioner as if his services had not been affected by the order. The Court also held that it was open to the University to initiate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.
( 1 ) PETITIONER in the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has invoked the letters patent power of this Court and appealed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the Court has declined to set aside the Order No. E. 11-1/92 dated 9-12-1992 of the 2nd respondent, the Vice-Chancellor of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi and to issue directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner-appellant to rejoin in the post of lecturer in Chemistry in Sri Venkateswara University College of arts and Sciences.
( 2 ) FACTS relevant for the issues involved in the appeal are that with his qualifications in Physical Chemistry and teaching experience the petitioner was appointed as lecturer by the order dated 31-1-1982 of the first respondent and was placed on probation for a period of two years in which post he was later confirmed. He got, according to him, Post-doctoral position in the department of Chemistry, EPEL, CH-1015, Lausaane, Switzerland, and applied for study leave. The Executive Council of the University granted the study leave to the appellant and released him to take up his post-doctoral studies in Switzerland on 16-8-1989. While in Switzerland the appellant sought extension and the executive Council of the University extended the appellants leave for one more year from 17-8-1990. The appellant sought one more extension and he got another extension for ten more months from 7-8-1991 to 30-6-1992. According to the appellant, his research work was still continuing and it was in final stages and he requested the University by letter dated 10-1-1992 to extend the study leave for one year after June, 1992 i. e. from July, 1992 to June, 1993. It seems and there is no dispute to the fact that the Vice-Chancellor (2nd respondent) turned down the appellant s request and the University wrote to him accordingly to re-join duty on 1-7-1992. The appellant, however, who was still busy in the project wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 23-3-1992 requesting him to reconsider his request for sanctioning the study leave for some more time. The first respondent, however, communicated to the appellant the proceedings of the second respondent (Vice Chancellor) dated 9-12-1992; the communication is as follows:"order: 1. Dr. K. Subramarayam Reddy, Lecturer in Chemistry (on leave) is hereby informed that he was granted study, leave for one year w. e. f. 16-8-89 A. M. in the proceedings first cited to take up the post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Chemistry, Lausanne, Switzerland, and the same was periodically extended up to 30-6-92. 2. His request for grant of extension of study leave for one more year w. e. f. 1-7-92 was not approved and he was directed to report for duty on 1-7-92 failing which his services would be terminated, vide reference fifth cited. 3. But, he has not rejoined duty even after the expiry of the study leave granted to him and also five months thereafter have already been lapsed. 4. As such, the services of Dr. K. Subramanayam Reddy, are terminated and he is deemed to have been relieved of his duties from this university service with effect from 16-8-1989 A. N. "
( 3 ) THE appellant continued his efforts to communicate to the University that he was likely to complete his work or, in any case, was willing to join his duty, but received no response from the respondents on his return to India and rinding that he no longer had any appointment with the University, he moved this Court. The Court s judgment, however, has gone against the appellant on grounds of delay in moving the Court saying. "as seen from the impugned proceedings and the series of facts narrated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was granted study leave for some time and the same was extended from time to time and the total study leave period was more than two years and ten months. The petitioner cannot compel the respondent University to go
