9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the termination order dated 26th February, 1979. 2. Compliance with principles of natural justice. 3. Validity of the High Court and Tribunal's findings. 4. Impact of the termination order on the respondent's future employment. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Termination Order: The appellant institution terminated the services of the respondent, a lecturer in Chemistry, on 26th February, 1979, after she failed to comply with the conditions of her granted leave. The respondent had applied for leave to pursue higher studies, initially for a Ph.D. course, which was rejected, and subsequently for an M.Phil course, which was granted under specific conditions. The conditions included registering for the M.Phil course and returning to duty if registration was not completed by a specified date. The respondent failed to register for the M.Phil course and instead registered for a Ph.D. course without the institution's permission. Despite reminders and show cause notices, she did not return to duty. The Supreme Court found that the respondent violated the conditions of her leave and acted contrary to her affidavit. Therefore, the termination order was deemed legal. 2. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: The High Court and the Tribunal held that the termination violated principles of natural justice as no proper enquiry was conducted. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent was given multiple opportunities to explain her actions, including a second show cause notice dated 20th December, 1978, which she responded to. The termination order considered her reply and other correspondence. The Court concluded that sufficient opportunity was given to the respondent, and there was no violation of natural justice. 3. Validity of the High Court and Tribunal's Findings: The High Court and the Tribunal set aside the termination order, citing the lack of an enquiry and opportunity for the respondent to defend herself. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting that the respondent admitted to not fulfilling the conditions of her leave and did not provide a plausible defense. The Court found that the facts were clear and undisputed, making an enquiry unnecessary. Thus, the findings of the High Court and the Tribunal were deemed incorrect, and the termination order was upheld. 4. Impact of the Termination Order on the Respondent's Future Employment: The respondent's counsel argued that the termination order would stigmatize her and affect her future employment. The Supreme Court held that the termination was an order of termination simpliciter and did not carry any stigma. The Court further protected the respondent by stating that the order should not be construed as stigmatizing her. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order dated 25th September, 1989, and the Tribunal's order dated 13th February, 1980. The termination order dated 26th February, 1979, was upheld, and it was concluded that the respondent acted in violation of her leave conditions and did not provide a sustainable defense. The Court also ensured that the termination order would not be read as stigmatizing the respondent. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
|
