Key Points: - The total absence in Mansoor Ali Khan and Murshad Hussain Khan did not exceed five years, so Rule 10(c)(ii) of the 1972 Rules does not apply; Rule 5(8)(i) applies for absence less than five years. (!) (!) - Rule 5(8)(i) requires a show cause/explanation; absence without such notice constitutes violation of natural justice, but the court may refrain from quashing if no prejudice or if exception applies. (!) (!) (!) - In Mansoor Ali Khan, absence was less than five years and the university forewarned no further extension would be possible; Court held that lack of notice under Rule 5(8)(i) did not prejudice the employee given the admitted facts, falling under exceptions to natural justice. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Rule 5(8)(ii) deals with cases where the officer is permitted to rejoin; it contemplates no leave/salary for the period and possible disciplinary action; not applicable where the officer never rejoined. (!) (!) - Rule 10(c)(ii) deems resignation after five years of absence, but is not applicable where total absence is under five years; distinguishes between Rules 5(8) and 10(c). (!) (!) - The appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside High Court judgments, and dismissed writ petitions, directing fresh consideration under the appropriate rules. (!) (!)

What is the applicability of Rule 5(8)(i) versus Rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules 1969?