IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Kokilaben Karsandas Manvar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Gujarat Krishi University & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 17920 of 2006
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Employment - Teacher Dismissal - G.S.E. Regulations - 29, 30 - The court upheld the dismissal of a teacher for unauthorized absence, interpreting the G.S.E. Regulations that prohibit absence without permission and emphasize that leave is not a right, influencing the decision to maintain the Tribunal's order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was dismissed for unauthorized absence from duty for over three years, despite multiple notices from the school management to report back. The petitioner claimed medical reasons for her absence but failed to provide adequate documentation during the inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had remained absent without proper intimation or leave for an extended period, and her medical certificates were not submitted during the inquiry, leading to a valid dismissal by the school management.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner for unauthorized absence was justified under the applicable regulations and whether the medical circumstances presented were sufficient to warrant leniency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized absence without prior permission or timely communication constitutes a valid ground for dismissal, and the absence of a reasonable explanation undermines claims of medical exigency.
Result: The petition was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.
1. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 5.
2. The petitioners herein are by way of present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, dismissing the Application No.174 of 1998 filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, as referred above, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :-
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order Or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 3/8/2005 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.174/1998, at Annexure “A" to the petition, and the impugned order dated 19/4/1996 passed by the respondent No.1, at Annexure “B" to the petition.
[C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and all other consequential benefits.
[D] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondents not to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher on which the petitioner was serving.
[E] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 3/8/2005 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.l74/1998, at Annexure-A" to the petition, and the impugned order dated 19/4/1996 passed by the respondent No.l, at Annexure "B" to the petition;
[ii] direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and all other consequential benefits;
[iii] direct the respondents not to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher on which the petitioner was serving.
[F] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents authority from implementing the impugned order dated January 15, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2 herein, and the impugned order dated March 4, 2005 at Annexure “C” to the petition, and, the impugned Notice for recovery dated December 2, 2005, at Annexure "D" to the petition.
[F] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioners, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :-
3.1 The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the respondent No.1 School as an Assistant Teacher on 24.6.1986 initially for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner was made permanent and she served with great care, sincerity and dedication.
3.2 The petitioner has initially remained absent for some period on medical grounds. The respondent University issued notices to the petitioner for remaining present and addressed several communications for the period for which the petitioner had remained absent.
3.3 The petitioner received notice on 23.2.1995 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why further steps should not be initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorisedly absent.
3.3 The administrative officer was appointed who asked for certain details from the university for the period of unauthorized period of absent of the petitioner. By communication dated 11-13.2.95, the respondent University sent details to the administrative officer of the university pointing out the relevant dates of absence of the petitioner.
3.4 The petitioner remained absent from 2.12.1991 to 18.12.1991 for a period of 17 days. On 2.12.1991, a report for leave on medical
Sadhana Lodh Versus National Insurance Company Limited
Vijay S. Sathaye Versus Indian Airlines Limited
Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Anr.
Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Anr.
G.T. Lad & Ors. v. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd.
Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr.
Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan
V.C. Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant
Unauthorized absence from duty without prior permission or timely communication justifies dismissal under applicable regulations.
The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority's decision, supported by a fair inquiry process, is not subject to re-evaluation by the court unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
A public servant's unauthorized absence can lead to dismissal, even if procedural irregularities exist in the disciplinary process, if the absence is deemed as abandonment of duty.
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence is justified when procedural requirements are met, despite claims of improper procedure by the employee.
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.