2006 (9) TMI 606 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Termination order from service - seek extension of leave from time to time - Faculty in Economics - repeated directions issued by the 1st respondent to the appellant to join duty did not evoke any positive response - HELD THAT - On Persual of the facts clearly establish that (i) in spite of repeated instructions, the appellant failed, rather refused, to report for duty for a period of nearly 8 months, from January to August 1995 and (ii) that after 2-3-1995, till August 1995, he did not even communicate with his employer, for one reason or the other. His conduct, during this period of about 8 months, which also incidentally happened to be a period when the bond executed by him was in force, does not inspire either the confidence or the sympathy of this Court. Therefore the inference drawn by the learned Judge that he was not interested in the job and that he had created a situation whereby he could escape his contractual obligations, appears to be not only reasonable but also inevitable. Consequently, the invocation of the theory of useless formality by the learned Judge, cannot be found fault with, especially in the light of the fact that the appellant was employed in a responsible position as a Faculty member for research projects. Thus all the grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant are untenable and we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently the appeal is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of termination without an enquiry.
2. Invocation of the principle of "useless formality."
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Adequacy of communication and service of notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Termination Without an Enquiry:
The appellant challenged the termination order on the ground that no enquiry preceded the termination, which he argued made the order liable to be set aside. The appellant contended that had an enquiry been conducted, he would have established valid reasons for his absence, thereby preventing the termination. The court, however, found that the appellant failed to report for duty for nearly eight months despite repeated instructions and did not communicate with his employer for a significant period. The court concluded that the appellant's conduct indicated a lack of interest in the job and an attempt to evade contractual obligations, thereby justifying the termination without an enquiry.

2. Invocation of the Principle of "Useless Formality":
The learned Judge invoked the principle of "useless formality," concluding that an enquiry would not have altered the outcome. The appellant argued against this principle, citing several Supreme Court judgments. However, the court upheld the invocation of this principle, noting that the appellant's prolonged absence and failure to communicate effectively with his employer demonstrated that an enquiry would not have changed the situation. The court emphasized that the appellant's actions were deliberate and aimed at escaping his contractual duties, making the principle of "useless formality" applicable.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the termination violated the principles of natural justice, which require a fair hearing before any adverse action. The court, however, noted that the principles of natural justice are not absolute and must be applied contextually. The court referred to the Supreme Court's distinction between a "total violation of natural justice" and a "mere violation of a facet of the rule." In this case, the court found that the termination did not arise from disciplinary proceedings but from the appellant's failure to fulfill his contractual obligations, thereby not warranting the application of natural justice principles in the same manner.

4. Adequacy of Communication and Service of Notice:
The appellant contended that the notices sent by the employer were not properly served, as they were returned undelivered with the endorsement "door locked." The court examined the sequence of communications and found that the employer had exhausted all avenues of service, including sending letters to the appellant's last known addresses and eventually publishing a notice in widely circulated newspapers. The court concluded that the employer had made reasonable efforts to communicate with the appellant, and the appellant's failure to respond or update his address did not invalidate the termination process.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The court upheld the termination, emphasizing that the appellant's prolonged absence, failure to communicate, and attempts to evade contractual obligations justified the termination without an enquiry. The invocation of the principle of "useless formality" and the adequacy of the employer's communication efforts were also affirmed, leading to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case.

← Previous Next →