2006 (5) TMI 473 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether whether the circulars dated 5/10, 1990 and 25.03.1998 on the basis whereof the Respondent has been held to have abandoned his services are valid in law and whether the post-decisional hearing given to the Respondent pursuant to the direction of the Court can be said to be fair and reasonable? Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the notification issued by the Executive Council could be invoked against the Respondent?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of the Respondent's services.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
3. Authority of the Vice Chancellor to terminate services.
4. Application of the University's circulars and notifications.
5. Entitlement to back wages.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the termination of the Respondent's services:
The Respondent, a Lecturer in Ophthalmology, left for the UK without express sanction of leave and without the Vice Chancellor's permission. The University terminated his services, deeming him to have abandoned his post. The High Court found the termination invalid but denied back wages. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the termination was not in accordance with statutory provisions.

2. Compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice:
The University is governed by the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915, which mandates specific procedures for disciplinary actions. The Executive Council is the competent authority to impose penalties. The Respondent was not given a fair hearing, and the procedure for imposing major penalties was not followed. The Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with principles of natural justice is essential, and the Respondent was not fairly dealt with by the statutory authorities.

3. Authority of the Vice Chancellor to terminate services:
The Vice Chancellor lacked the authority to terminate the Respondent's services unilaterally. The power to impose penalties, including termination, lies with the Executive Council. The Vice Chancellor's actions were beyond his jurisdiction, and the termination order was deemed a nullity. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory authorities must act within their prescribed powers.

4. Application of the University's circulars and notifications:
The University issued circulars stating that employees who overstay leave without permission would be deemed to have abandoned their services. However, these circulars were not part of the statutory framework and could not override statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that executive instructions cannot create new misconduct or legal fictions and must be in line with statutory provisions.

5. Entitlement to back wages:
The High Court denied back wages to the Respondent despite finding the termination invalid. The Supreme Court modified this decision, awarding the Respondent 75% of his back wages, considering the prolonged period he was not allowed to join his duties and the University's conduct. The Respondent was also awarded costs of the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the University's appeal and partially allowed the Respondent's appeal, granting him 75% back wages and costs. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions.