Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Avinash Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2439/2020 | CM APPL. 53348/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikash Kumar
For the Respondents: Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Nandini Aggarwal, Samiksha
A 'deemed abandonment' clause providing for automatic termination upon unauthorized absence cannot be used to bypass disciplinary inquiry requirements when the employer treats the absence as willful misconduct, as this violates natural justice and constitutional fairness in service jurisprudence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ Jurisdiction - Service Law - Maintainability of petition against a public sector entity for termination of regular employment; the exercise of power under internal service rules by such an entity is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with fairness and non-arbitrariness. (Paras 34-36)
(B) Service Law - Termination of Service - Deemed Abandonment - Clause for automatic termination upon unauthorized absence cannot be utilized solely to bypass mandatory disciplinary processes when the employer characterizes the conduct as willful disobedience or misconduct; termination involving serious civil consequences requires adherence to principles of natural justice and a fair inquiry. (Paras 44, 45, 48)
(C) Disciplinary Proceedings - Requirement of Inquiry - Where a service rule provides for action against misconduct, the employer is obligated to frame charges and conduct an inquiry; mechanical application of a deeming fiction to terminate an employee for unauthorized absence without a determination on whether the absence was willful or justified is unsustainable. (Paras 50-54)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a regular employee, challenged a transfer order to a different region due to alleged personal and professional grievances. When the employee did not report for duty at the transferred location, the employer invoked a specific clause in its service rules regarding 'deemed abandonment' of service due to unauthorized absence surpassing a specified duration. The employee's services were subsequently terminated without any formal disciplinary inquiry or charge-sheet.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while transfer is an ordinary incident of service and an employee cannot insist on a specific posting, the employer is not permitted to bypass established disciplinary procedures. By characterizing the employee's failure to report as 'willful misconduct' in its defense, the employer created a situation where a disciplinary inquiry was mandatory rather than resorting to an automatic termination clause.
Issues: The main issues were whether a writ petition is maintainable for challenging the termination of a regular employee by a public entity, and whether the employer could validly apply a 'deemed abandonment' clause to terminate employment without holding a disciplinary inquiry when the conduct is framed as willful misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision providing for 'deemed' termination of service for unauthorized absence cannot operate in a vacuum; it must be reconciled with the requirement of natural justice. When an employer labels a worker's absence as willful disobedience, they are bound by their own disciplinary rules to hold an inquiry, and summary termination violates both the principles of fair play and constitutional standards of equality.
Result: Petition allowed; termination order set aside with a direction for reinstatement. The employer is granted liberty to initiate proper disciplinary proceedings if it so desires, with service benefits pending the outcome of such proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the procedural history and the factual matrix of employment termination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. contention regarding public accountability of state entities and service rule application. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 3. maintainability of writ petitions against public sector joint ventures. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. transfer is an ordinary incident of service and cannot be challenged unless mala fide. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 5. automatic termination based on deemed abandonment requires natural justice and inquiry compliance. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 6. consequential relief including back wages depends on the nature of the illegal termination. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 7. final orders mandate reinstatement pending regular disciplinary inquiry. (Para 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. This writ petition impugns order dated 30th August, 2019, whereby the Petitioner was transferred from the Corporate Office of Respondent No. 2/Energy Efficiency Services Limited,1“EESL” Delhi/NCR to Agartala, Tripura, as well as the subsequent order dated 6th December, 2019, by which his name was struck off the rolls on the ground of unauthorised absence. A consequential release order dated 9th December, 2019 records that his services stood terminated with effect from 6th December 2019.
CM APPL. 53348/2025
2. This application seeks amendment of the captioned writ petition. The proposed amendment is essentially formal in nature. While the Petitioner had originally challenged the transfer order dated 30th August, 2019, the amended petition also impugns the subsequent order dated 6th December, 2019 terminating his services, along with the consequential release order. The foundational facts remain unchanged.
3. Respondent No. 2 has already filed its counter affidavit addressing the challenge as set out in the amended writ petition and has had full opportunity to meet the case. No prejudice would therefore be caused by permitting the amendment.
4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The amended writ petition is taken on record.
W.P.(C) 2439/2020
Factual Background
5. The Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant and Cost and Management Accountant, was appointed as Manager (Finance) (Regular) by Respondent No. 2. The offer of appointment dated 29th July, 2016 stipulated his initial posting at the Corporate Office, Noida. The Petitioner accepted the offer on 3rd August, 2016 and joined service on 27th September, 2016. By office order dated 5th October, 2016, he was posted at Kolkata and was directed to report to Mr. S. Gopal, CGM (Finance).
6. The Petitioner asserts that, while posted at Kolkata, he reported financial irregularities and discrepancies in stock movement within EESL by way of an email dated 5th April, 2017 titled “Highly Confidential,” addressed to Mr. S. Gopal and Mr. Mohit Khatri. Shortly thereafter, by order dated 7th April, 2017, he was transferred to the Corporate Office at Noida, with a direction to continue handling his existing assignments, including payments for the Eastern Region, and to report to Mr. S. Gopal. The Petitioner joined the Corporate Office on 20th April, 2017.
7. On 7th June, 2017, the Petitioner, along with one Sudhanshu Tarway, was deputed for verification of stock and related activities in Jharkhand. A report dated 30th June, 2017 was submitted, noting discrepancies including faulty and missing bulbs, irregular institutional sales, mismatch in material inward and outward, and significant variance between dashboard and actual sales, with an assessed financial implication of ₹3,10,58,747.
8. According to the Petitioner, he continued to report irregularities in the commercial, stock and financial processes of EESL. On 14th June, 2018, he was transferred from the P&A Division to the Commercial
