Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a writ petition filed by a permanent employee of the State Transport Corporation, Gujarat, who challenged his termination from service. The employee, working as a Writer at Visnagar Depot, had applied for fifteen days' leave on January 15, 1962, citing personal work. On January 16, 1962, he was transferred to Ambaji where a vacancy existed, and a formal transfer order was issued on January 31, 1962. The employee applied for extension of leave on medical grounds, but this was refused on February 15, 1962, with a direction to report for duty at Ambaji within forty-eight hours, failing which he would be removed. The employee wrote on March 3, 1962, enclosing a medical certificate, stating he was unable to join duty due to illness. By an order dated March 9, 1962, his services were terminated with effect from January 16, 1962, on the ground of long absence. The employee's representation to the Divisional Controller and appeals to the General Manager and Appellate Committee were rejected; the Appellate Committee held that his leave applications were made to evade joining duty at Ambaji. He then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed it in limine on May 28, 1963. A certificate for appeal was refused on June 17, 1963, but special leave was granted by the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the employee was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment before termination, as required by Regulation 61 and Clause 4(b) of Schedule A to the Service Regulations. The appellant contended that Clauses 38 and 40 classified absence without leave and failure to report after leave refused as acts of misconduct, and consequently Clause 4(b) mandated providing a copy of charges and statement of allegations and affording an opportunity to show cause. The respondent argued that the termination was not punitive and that the only right was two months' pay in lieu of notice under Regulation 61; alternatively, the correspondence showed substantial compliance with natural justice. The Supreme Court examined the relevant regulations. Regulation 61 provided for termination by giving one month's notice or pay, and for permanent employees, sixty days' notice or pay. Clauses 38 and 40 specified that irregular attendance, absence without leave without reasonable cause, and failure to report when directed after leave refused were acts of misconduct under Schedule A. Clause 4(b) unequivocally required that a person against whom action is proposed for misconduct shall be provided with a copy of the charge or charges and a statement of allegations before enquiry. The Court held that it was obligatory to give the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause by providing charge and allegations. It rejected the respondent's argument that termination was simpliciter, noting that the order specifically referred to long absence, which was a misconduct under the regulations. The Court emphasized that an employee must know the charges and allegations to deny guilt and establish innocence; automatic removal without such opportunity violated Clause 4(b) and principles of natural justice. Therefore, the termination order was bad in law. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the dismissal order by writ of certiorari, but permitted the respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving the employee reasonable opportunity to show cause under Clause 4(b). No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Employment - Misconduct - State Transport Corporation Service Regulations, Clauses 3, 38, 40, 4(b) and Regulation 61 - Employee absent without leave and failed to report after leave refused; termination order referred to long absence but no charge or enquiry was conducted - Held that absence without leave and failure to report when directed constitute acts of misconduct, and termination for such misconduct without providing copy of charges and statement of allegations contravened Clause 4(b), making the order bad in law (Paras not mentioned). B) Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Opportunity to Show Cause Before Punishment - State Transport Corporation Service Regulations, Clause 4(b) - Requirement of reasonable opportunity to show cause is mandatory before dismissal for misconduct; employee must know charges and allegations to deny guilt and establish innocence - Held that the impugned termination without charge-sheet or enquiry violated natural justice and was quashed (Paras not mentioned). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Quashing of Termination Order - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - High Court dismissed writ petition in limine; Supreme Court found termination contrary to regulations - Held that writ of certiorari issued quashing dismissal order, but respondent permitted to conduct fresh enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to show cause under Clause 4(b) (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment before termination, as required by Regulation 61 and Clause 4(b) of Schedule A to the Service Regulations, and whether the termination order was bad in law for non-compliance with those provisions and principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of termination quashed by writ of certiorari; respondent permitted to hold fresh enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to show cause under Clause 4(b); no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Permanent employee cannot be terminated for misconduct without providing copy of charges and statement of allegations under Clause 4(b) of Service Regulations
- absence without leave and failure to report when directed constitute misconduct under Clauses 38 and 40
- termination for such misconduct requires reasonable opportunity to show cause
- non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards violates natural justice
- writ of certiorari may quash termination order but fresh enquiry permissible after compliance.
