9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 5(8)(i) and Rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules, 1969. 2. Applicability of Rule 10(C)(i) and Rule 10(C)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. 3. Determination of the applicable rule for the cases of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan and Mr. Murshad Hussain Khan. 4. Examination of any violation of principles of natural justice under Rule 5(8)(i) of the Leave Rules, 1969. 5. Consideration of whether Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan can invoke the principle of natural justice and whether any prejudice was caused to him. Summary: Point 1: Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules applies to employees who absent themselves from duty without prior leave or fail to return after the expiry of leave without obtaining further leave. It mandates that the appointing authority must communicate with the employee, ask for an explanation, and if unsatisfactory, the employee shall be deemed to have vacated the post. Rule 5(8)(ii) applies when an employee is permitted to rejoin duty after unauthorized absence, debiting the period as leave without pay, and may treat willful absence as misconduct. Point 2: Rule 10(C)(i) of the 1972 Rules states that no permanent employee shall be granted leave for more than five years continuously. Rule 10(C)(ii) states that if an employee does not resume duty after five years of leave or remains absent beyond five years, they shall be deemed to have resigned unless the Executive Council decides otherwise. Point 3: For both Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan and Mr. Murshad Hussain Khan, the total period of absence did not exceed five years. Therefore, Rule 10(C)(ii) of the 1972 Rules does not apply. Only Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules is applicable, which requires a show cause notice and reply. Point 4: In Mr. Murshad Hussain Khan's case, a show cause notice was issued, and his reply was considered, making the termination valid. The Division Bench erred in following the judgment in Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan's case without noting this distinction. In Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan's case, no notice was given, violating principles of natural justice. However, the question remains whether this violation caused any prejudice. Point 5: Despite the lack of notice, Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan was already informed that no further leave extension would be granted beyond the one-year extension. His subsequent actions were in direct contravention of this notice. The Supreme Court held that even if a notice had been given, the result would not have been different, as his explanation would not have been satisfactory. Therefore, no prejudice was caused by the absence of notice. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed. No costs were ordered.
|
