Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAJA, J.
Vinod Kumar Madan (Deceased) and Others
Versus
General Manager, Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd., (Transformer and Switchgear Unit), Chennai 600 096 and Others
W.P. No. 5811 of 2009
Decided on: 25 June 2013
Unauthorised Absence - Service Termination - Rule 5(7) and 5(18) of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules - Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 3 SCC 124 : LNIND 2008 SC 2346 : 2009-II-LLJ-9 : (2009) 3 MLJ 289 - Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Urban Division, Devipuram, Tuticorin v. Dharmar and Others, LNIND 2009 MAD 1135 : (2009) 5 MLJ 638
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was terminated without holding an enquiry after seeking medical leave, and the respondents failed to conduct a proper disciplinary action as per the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the termination to be illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the applicable rules. The court also directed the respondents to pay backwages and other admissible allowances to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.
Issues: Unauthorised absence, termination without enquiry, violation of principles of natural justice, entitlement to backwages and service benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The termination of the petitioner's services without holding a proper enquiry was illegal and in violation of the rules. The legal heirs of the deceased petitioner were entitled to backwages and service benefits.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay backwages and other admissible allowances to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Madan, was terminated from service without a proper enquiry after seeking medical leave, which was found to be unlawful and in violation of principles of natural justice and applicable rules (!) (!) .
The court held that the termination was illegal because it was made without conducting a fair and proper disciplinary enquiry, contrary to established legal requirements for service termination of a permanent employee (!) (!) .
The respondents failed to follow the prescribed procedures under the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, specifically Rules 5(7) and 5(18), which mandate disciplinary proceedings before termination, and their actions were in breach of these rules (!) (!) .
The medical evidence, including certification from a Medical Board, established that the petitioner was justified in taking medical leave, and he was not an unauthorized absentee. The respondents' decision to treat his absence as abandonment was therefore unjustified (!) .
The court found that the order of termination was issued in violation of natural justice, as no show cause notice or enquiry was conducted before striking off the petitioner’s name from the rolls (!) .
Since the petitioner had been transferred to Chennai and was actively working there, and considering the medical certification and his presence before the Medical Board, the court upheld that the jurisdiction for the case is proper in the High Court (!) .
The court emphasized that the services of a permanent employee cannot be arbitrarily terminated without a fair enquiry, and the failure to do so renders the termination illegal (!) (!) .
As the petitioner passed away during the pendency of the case, the court directed that the legal heirs are entitled to receive backwages and other service benefits, including gratuity and provident fund dues, which had already been partially paid (!) (!) .
The court set aside the impugned order of termination and directed the respondents to pay the remaining service benefits, including backwages and allowances, to the legal heirs within six weeks of the order (!) .
The court also directed the respondents to pay the admitted gratuity and provident fund dues that had been previously paid, and to process the remaining benefits accordingly (!) .
The overall decision highlights the importance of following proper disciplinary procedures and principles of natural justice in service matters, especially in cases of termination of permanent employees (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
1. This writ petition was originally filed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Madan challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent, the Director (Personnel), Andrew Yule and Company Limited, Kolkatta in Reference No. ADM/PER dated 25.6.2008 dismissing him without holding enquiry, to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with effect from 25.6.2008 and to pay the consequential benefits flowing therefrom including continuity of service, backwages and other admissible allowances. During the pendency of the matter, the petitioner Mr. Vinod Kumar Madan unfortunately passed away on 28.11.2009. Therefore, an application in M.P. No. 1 of 2010 was filed by his legal representatives viz., mother, wife and daughter seeking to implead them as petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 in the writ petition and this Court, by order dated 10.2.2010, allowed the impleading application and brought them on record.
2. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Neelakantan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager (Sales), Electrical Division, Northern Region at Delhi vide appointment letter dated 14.6.90 and he joined the services of the respondent-Andrew Yule and Company on 22.8.90. After sometime, he was transferred from New Delhi to Chennai by order dated 13.8.2007 issued by the head office at Kolkatta. Immediately the first petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 19.8.2007 followed by another letter on 27.8.2007 seeking to reconsider the transfer order on the ground of old age and ill-health of his mother and other domestic commitments. However, when there was no positive reply from the second respondent, he handed over his charge on 30.8.2007 and joined the office at Chennai on 3.9.2007. In the meanwhile, he was compelled to go to New Delhi. Therefore, on application, the first petitioner was sanctioned earned leave from 17.9.2007 to 23.9.2007 by the first respondent. It was further stated that when he was staying in New Delhi, his mother’s health deteriorated. Therefore, he applied to the first respondent for extension of leave for a further period from 24.9.2007 to 7.10.2007. In the meanwhile, by citing domestic reasons, he made a request to transfer him back to New Delhi. However, the first respondent, considering the request, sanctioned the leave till 7.10.2007, but rejected his request for transfer on administrative grounds. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner himself fell sick with severe cervical spondylitis and neck pain. In this connection, he consulted the doctors of All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi and he was taking continuous treatment for the same. The doctors, while giving treatment to the first petitioner, also advised him complete rest. On that basis, the first petitioner wrote a letter to the first respondent on 6.10.2007 seeking leave for a further period of 28 days from 8.10.2007 to 4.11.2007. However, the first respondent replied to him stating that he was eligible only for 11 days of sick leave and the remaining 17 days would be debited to the earned leave credit. Thereafter, the first petitioner, facing illness, sent another letter to the first respondent on 3.11.2007 seeking extension of medical leave from 511.2007 to 19.11.2007. The first respondent, by his letter dated 7.11.2007, informed the first petitioner to submit necessary documents within ten days of the receipt of the letter and thereafter to appear before the competent Medical Board. Immediately the first petitioner replied to the letter by reiterating his health condition and requested for the payment of salary and other reimbursements through the Delhi office by providing all the necessary particulars to the third respondent. Although the first respondent forwarded the cheque towards salary dues on 3.12.2007 to the third respondent to be collected by the first petitioner, the third respondent directed the first petiti
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
