Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 2903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Dr. S.K. Bansal - Petitioner
Versus
UOI & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 248 of 2003
Decided On : 25-10-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.P. Cama, Senior Adv. with Mr. R.G. Srivastava, Adv.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - ONGC - LEAVE REGULATIONS, 1968 - REGULATION 14(5) - DEEMED RESIGNATION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - INQUIRY - VALIDITY OF REGULATION 14(5) - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 14, 16 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a geophysicist with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), was transferred from Dehradun to Delhi in 1984. He was subsequently transferred to Mumbai in 1987, but he did not join the new posting. The ONGC issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, alleging that he had been unauthorizedly absent from duty for over 90 days and that he was deemed to have resigned from service under Regulation 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Regulations, 1968. The petitioner challenged the order of deemed resignation, arguing that it was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that Regulation 14(5) was unconstitutional and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ONGC had complied with the principles of natural justice by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to respond. The court also held that Regulation 14(5) was not unconstitutional or discriminatory, as it was a reasonable provision designed to prevent employees from abusing their leave privileges. The court further held that the ONGC had acted reasonably in invoking Regulation 14(5) against the petitioner, given his prolonged unauthorized absence from duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the ONGC had complied with the principles of natural justice in issuing the show cause notice and conducting the inquiry. 2. Whether Regulation 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Regulations, 1968 was unconstitutional and discriminatory. 3. Whether the ONGC had acted reasonably in invoking Regulation 14(5) against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice require that an employee be given a show cause notice and an opportunity to respond before being subjected to disciplinary action. The ONGC had complied with these requirements by issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to respond. 2. Regulation 14(5) of the ONGC Leave Regulations, 1968 is not unconstitutional or discriminatory. It is a reasonable provision designed to prevent employees from abusing their leave privileges. 3. The ONGC had acted reasonably in invoking Regulation 14(5) against the petitioner, given his prolonged unauthorized absence from duty.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of deemed resignation issued by the ONGC.
1. The petitioner was appointed as geophysicist, with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Respondent No. 2 herein and referred to, hereinafter, as “ONGC”), on 3rd April, 1984, and was posted at Dehradun. On 6th July, 1984, he was transferred, along with the post, to the Delhi office of the ONGC, vide Office Order dated 27th April, 1984.
2. Vide Office Order dated 27th March, 1987, the petitioner was re-transferred to Dehradun. According to the petitioner, during his stay at Dehradun, he developed kidney trouble, for which he was referred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), at Delhi.
3. As he was required, thereafter, to undergo periodical check-ups at the AIIMS, the petitioner applied, on 22nd April, 1987, for transfer to Delhi on compassionate grounds. He also pointed out that his wife was employed in a school of the Delhi Administration, and that it would be possible for her to take care of him, if he were to be posted at Delhi. The request for compassionate transfer to Delhi was reiterated, by the petitioner, vide representation dated 7th September, 1987.
4. On 7th November, 1987, the petitioner was transferred to the Mumbai Regional Business Centre (MRBC), Mumbai. The petitioner applied, on 24th November, 1987, for cancellation of the said order of transfer, on compassionate grounds. Acceding to the said request, the ONGC, vide Office Order dated 15th February, 1988, placed the decision to post the petitioner at Bombay in abeyance.
5. Vide Office Order dated 31st March, 1988, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi, where he joined duty on 11th April, 1988.
6. Vide Office Order dated 15th March, 1990, the petitioner was again transferred to the MRBC, Bombay, allegedly ignoring the fact that he was undergoing treatment at AIIMS, Delhi.
7. The petitioner represented, on 2nd April, 1990, to the Director (Exploration), ONGC, for cancellation of the order transferring him to the MRBC, Bombay, on health issues. The petitioner alleges, however, that the said request was not considered by the ONGC.
8. Subsequently, on a personal request being made by the petitioner’s father, the transfer, of the petitioner, to Bombay, was deferred till 31st March, 1991.
9. On 11th March, 1991, the petitioner again applied to the Vice-Chairman of the ONGC, requesting for cancellation of the order transferring him to Bombay, again citing health and compassionate grounds. The said request was, however, rejected, by the ONGC, vide order dated 27th March, 1991.
10. The petitioner contends that, as, owing to various difficulties, it was not possible for him to proceed to Bombay, he requested for leave, due to him, for two months, from 1st April, 1991 to 31st May, 1991, vide an application sent by Registered Post to the Bombay office of the ONGC. This was followed by successive applications, dated 15th June, 1991, 8th August, 1991, 12th October, 1991, 7th December, 1991 and 7th April, 1992, in which leave was sought for the periods 1st June, 1991 to 31st July, 1991, 1st August, 1991 to 30th September, 1991, 1st October, 1991 to 30th October, 1991, 1st December, 1991 to 15th January, 1992 and 16th January, 1992 to 31st May, 1992. The petitioner submits that he received no response, to any of the said representations.
11. Vide communication dated 28th April, 1992, the respondents informed the petitioner that, as his leave had not been sanctioned by the competent authority, he had remained unauthorisedly absent from work from 21st April, 1991. He was, accordingly, instructed to report for duty, failing which disciplinary action was threatened.
12. The petitioner, however, again requested, vide representation dated 28th May, 1992, for leave, without pay, for the period 1st June, 1992 to 31st August, 1992, citing domestic difficulties which, rendered it impossible for him to leave Delhi.
13. The respondents again communicated, with the petitioner, on 16th July, 1992, directing him to resume duties forthwith, failing which the petitioner woul
