Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Subhas Chandra Karmakar - Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Professional University, Through its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 191 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2024
TERMINATION - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT - APU Act, 2012, Section 16(9); APU Act, 2012, Section 40(1) - The court discussed the provisions of the APU Act, particularly Section 16(9) regarding the requirement of a reasonable opportunity to be heard before termination and Section 40(1) which allows for termination of contractual employees. The court interpreted these provisions in the context of the petitioner's termination, emphasizing the lack of compliance with natural justice principles and the contractual obligations of both parties. The court concluded that the termination was valid due to the petitioner's failure to meet performance standards and submit required qualifications, despite the procedural shortcomings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer at APU, was terminated from his position on grounds of unsatisfactory performance without being given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as required by the APU Act. He claimed to have applied for leave due to his wife's medical condition, which was sanctioned, but was still terminated. The petitioner alleged that the university's actions were arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was indeed terminated for valid reasons, including unauthorized absence and failure to submit mandatory qualifications. The court noted that the university had communicated its dissatisfaction with the petitioner's performance and had the right to terminate the contract without notice under the APU Act. The court also highlighted that the petitioner did not follow the dispute resolution process outlined in his contract.
Issues: Whether the termination of the petitioner was valid under the APU Act and whether the university complied with the principles of natural justice in the termination process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the petitioner was entitled to a fair process, the grounds for termination were substantiated by evidence of poor performance and non-compliance with contractual obligations. The court emphasized that contractual employees have limited rights regarding termination, especially when the contract period has expired.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition but ordered the university to release the withheld salary of the petitioner, acknowledging that he had provided services until the termination date.
JUDGMENT :
Mitali Thakuria, J.
Heard Mr. M. Mili, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. J. Zongluju, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ in nature of certiorari and/or mandamus and/or any other writs, orders or directions.
3. This application has been filed challenging the order of termination, dated 22.12.2018, issued by the respondent No. 1/ the Apex Professional University (APU in short).
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a lecturer in English by profession with more than 23 years of teaching experience and also had held the post of a principle in two schools. He was appointed as lecturer in the Department of English in APU, Pasighat on 04.05.2018, vide its order dated APU/MC/RO/05/2018-283 on contractual basis for a period of 12 months from the date of joining, at a monthly salary of Rs.14,400/-(subject to statutory and other deductions as applicable).
5. Consequently, on 22.12.2018, the petitioner received a termination letter from his service with immediate effect on the ground that the management was not satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. It is further mentioned that despite repeated efforts from the management to improve the petitioner’s performance, it did not yield the desire result and therefore, his service was terminated. But the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action taken against him, which is not in conformity with the provision under Section 16 sub-section 9 of the APU Act, 2012. The manner in which the petitioner’s service was terminated does not comply with the principles of natural justice.
6. The petitioner’s wife was hospitalized with Gallstone Pancreatitis since first week of November 2018 and accordingly, he applied for leave for 5 days which was duly granted to him but subsequently on 22.12.2018, he received the letter of termination and hence in reply to the termination letter, he written a letter to the Registrar, APU on 28.12.2018, pointing out a lot of anomalies and illegalities commonly practice in the University and also questioned its validity. He also wrote a letter to the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC for short) wherein the petitioner gave information about the violation of norms/rules/laws of UGC/Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Government of India by APU, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner on 01.01.2019, wrote a letter to the Registrar, APU suggesting to have some arrangements with him. But no arrangement was made by the University and he was also directed to vacate accommodation provided by the University on or before 26.12.2018 without paying the salary which was due to him. However, on 30.03.2019, the petitioner was informed vide official order No. 133/2019 that his belongings were removed and kept somewhere unknown to the petitioner.
7. In pursuant to his letter to UGC, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Secretary, Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh to the Vice Chancellor of APU, Pasighat to respond to the letter given by the NHRC dated 08.02.2019. Accordingly, the Vice Chancellor, APU replied to the show cause notice on 06.05.2019 denying all the allegations made by the petitioner against the University.
8. It is submitted by Mr. M. Mili, learned counsel for the petitioner that the terms and condition in the appointment letter, the contract of employment, manner/mode of termination and the University’s reply to the show cause notice of the Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh are arbitrary, exploitative, unjust and unconstitutional because of which the petitioner and his family have to go through immeasurable miseries and hardships. It is further submitted that the petitioner tried to do his best for the betterment of the students as well as the teachers and also request the University authorities for b
The judgment establishes the importance of contractual compliance, including the submission of mandatory qualifications and adherence to prescribed dispute resolution processes, in employment dispute....
Termination without due process violates natural justice; confirmed employees must be given an opportunity to present their case per established service rules.
Termination orders with allegations of misconduct require a formal inquiry and adherence to natural justice, even for contractual employees.
The main legal point established is the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including providing an opportunity of hearing, in termination proceedings, and the applicability....
The court emphasized the need for cause notice and due procedure of law before discontinuing the services of a contractual employee.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents must act fairly and justly, conduct a fair inquiry, and adhere to the principles of fair-play, good conscience, and natural ju....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
