IMPORTANT POINT
Termination of employment requires strict adherence to statutory procedures, including proper notice and opportunity for the employee to respond.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in underlying writ petition being W.P. (C) 104/2008 captioned Bhuvanesh Vyas vs. I.G.N.O.U. whereby the learned Single Judge had set aside the Termination Order bearing Office Order No. 488 dated 07.04.1993 wherefrom the services of the respondent was terminated from 22.09.1992, and restored the services of the respondent-employee entitling him for 50% backwages till the respondent-employee attained superannuation.

2. Briefly stated, the respondent was appointed as Senior Software Engineer in appellant university, i.e. IGNOU in the pay scale of 3700-6700 vide letter dated 02.06.1989 and joined on 11.07.1989 at Delhi. The respondent was confirmed w.e.f. 11.07.1990 vide letter dated 6/7.02.1991. The respondent applied for leave for 90 days to visit USA vide application dated 04.09.1992 and claims that his leave application was approved by the approving officer on 07.09.1992. He further sought extension up to 12.07.1993 vide his application dated 06.12.1992 sent from Arlington, USA. On 15.02.1993, the respondent received a telegraphic message that his Earned Leave and Extra Ordinary Leave had not been sanctioned and was asked to report for duty within a period of 30 days failing which his services would stand terminated w.e.f. 22.09.1992, retrospectively. The respondent, claiming to be physically unfit to join duties, sent an application dated 23.02.1993 along with a medical certificate from USA. He returned to India on 22.03.1993 and informed the Registrar that he was still not fit to join duties and sent a Medical Certificate in support thereof. On being declared medically fit, the respondent resumed duty on 01.06.1993 along with sickness certificate and medical fitness certificate. The respondent was allowed to join duty and mark his attendance. On 03.06.1993, the respondent submitted a representation requesting for regularisation of his leave period. On 11.06.1993, the respondent was informed that his services had been terminated w.r.e.f. 22.09.1992 vide impugned order dated 07.04.1993. The appellant claims that the communication dated 07.04.1993 was sent to the respondent under registered post on 08.04.1993 on the address of USA. Thereafter the respondent was not permitted to mark his attendance from 11.06.1993. He was not paid any salary for the period for which he had applied for leave.

3. On 17.06.1993, the respondent sent a representation indicating that his termination was illegal and should be reconsidered. The said representation was rejected and thereafter the respondent filed W.P. (C) 5023/1993 in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur and challenged the action of termination of his service as being violative of statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The same was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction on 16.08.2005. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a Civil Special Appeal No. 488/2005 before the Division Bench of the aforesaid court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2007 by observing that they do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

4. It was only thereafter, in the year 2008, that the respondent had approached this Court by filing the underlying writ petition challenging the order of termination, which proceedings culminated into impugned order challenged in the present appeal.

Contentions on behalf of the appellant:

5. Mr. Aly Mirza, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset submits that the learned Single Judge has misread and misconstrued the factual statements contained in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant regarding sanctioning of the leave sought by the respondent. He argues that if one were to appreciate the facts correctly, the edifice on which the impugned judgment is premised, would dissipate. He c