Violation of principles of natural justice cannot be projected.

This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.7.2003 in W.P.No.5259 of 1996.

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The appellant, whose challenge to an order of termination was rejected by the learned Judge in the writ petition, is before us in this appeal.

2. The facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:-

a) The appellant was appointed as a Faculty in Economics in the 1st respondent institute in July 1989 and after completion of probation, he executed an agreement to serve the Institute for 2 years. In 1992 he was sent for a training programme to U.K., and after his return, he executed another agreement to serve the Institute for a period of 3 years.

b) On 17-11-1994, he applied for earned leave for 7 days on the ground that his mother was sick. But subsequently, the leave was sought to be extended from 13-12-1994 till 12-1-1995 on the ground that his sister and brother-in-law were involved in an accident. But the Institute sanctioned leave only upto 31-12-1994 and advised him to join duty on 2-1-1995 on the ground that he was required to complete a research assignment expeditiously.

c) Since he did not join duty on 2-1-1995, a telegram was sent advising him to report for duty and also pointing out that his absence from 2-1-1995 was unauthorized and that disciplinary proceedings might be initiated against him if he failed to join duty.

d) However the appellant again submitted an application for extension of leave from on 9-1-1995 for 60 days with effect from 1-1-1995 and the same was also rejected by a letter dated 30-1-1995 citing pressing exigencies of official work. But the appellant sent a leave letter on 2-3-1995 seeking extension of leave by 1 month on the ground that he was not well. The said request was also turned down.

e) Thereafter, there was no communication from the appellant and hence the 1st respondent Institute sent a letter dated 8-8-1995 by registered post calling upon the appellant to report for duty by 16-8-1995. Since there was no sign of the appellant joining duty, the 1st respondent discharged the appellant by a letter dated 25-8-1995. Both these letters returned undelivered with the endorsement “door locked”. Therefore by a Newspaper publication dated 18-11-1995, the appellant was informed of his discharge from service.

f) Upon seeing the paper publication, the appellant filed the writ petition W.P.No.5259 of 1996 challenging the order of termination, primarily on the ground that no enquiry preceded the order of termination and that therefore it was liable to be set aside.

3. The learned Judge, after considering the rival contentions, invoked the principle of “useless formality” and held that an enquiry would not have really altered the outcome and that it was the appellant’s own making. Consequently, the learned Judge upheld the order of termination.

4. Assailing the said order of the learned Judge, Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the principle of “useless formality” cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that if an enquiry had been conducted, the appellant would have easily established that he had valid reasons for his absence and that the failure to hold an enquiry, resulted in a grave injustice being meted out to the appellant. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that originally the appellant applied for earned leave on 17-11-1994 and the same was sanctioned. Subsequently, there were some mishaps in the family followed by his mother’s sickness and his own ill-health, forcing him to seek extension of leave from time to time and that if an enquiry had been conducted, he would have convinced the disciplinary authority not to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the conduct of an enquiry would have changed the entire complexion of the game and hence the invocation of the principle of useless formality by the learned Judge w