High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Upholds Termination of University Employee for Unauthorized Absence Due to Detention in Criminal Case. Absence Without Leave Not Excused by Acquittal Under Section 307 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Ashok Janardhan Shinde, was employed as a Laboratory Boy with Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith (the University) from 22 January 1999. He was arrested and detained for more than 48 hours in connection with a crime punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Due to his detention, he remained absent from duty without prior intimation or leave. The University terminated his services on the ground of unauthorized absence. The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India. The court heard both sides. The petitioner argued that his absence was involuntary due to detention and that he was later acquitted, so the termination was unjust. The University contended that the petitioner failed to report for duty or apply for leave, and his absence was unauthorized. The court held that absence due to detention does not constitute sanctioned leave, and the employee is required to inform the employer and seek leave. The fact of subsequent acquittal does not retroactively validate the unauthorized absence. The court found no violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner had the opportunity to explain but did not. The petition was dismissed, upholding the termination order.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Termination for Unauthorized Absence - Absence due to detention in criminal case - Employee detained for more than 48 hours under Section 307 IPC - University terminated service for absence without leave - Held that absence due to detention does not constitute leave, and termination is valid even if employee later acquitted - No violation of natural justice as employee failed to report or seek leave (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether termination of a university employee for unauthorized absence due to detention in a criminal case is valid when the employee was subsequently acquitted.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The termination order is upheld.

Law Points

  • Termination for unauthorized absence
  • Article 226
  • Article 14
  • Constitution of India
  • Indian Penal Code Section 307
  • service law
  • natural justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 7

Writ Petition No. 917 of 2009

2018-03-05

T.V. Nalawade, K.L. Wadane

Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil for Petitioner, Mr. M.N. Nawandar for Respondents

Ashok S/o Janardhan Shinde

Marathwada Krushi Vidyapith, Parbhani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India challenging termination from service.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of termination order and reinstatement with back wages.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was terminated for unauthorized absence due to detention in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC.

Issues

Whether termination for unauthorized absence due to detention in a criminal case is valid. Whether subsequent acquittal affects the validity of termination.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that absence was involuntary due to detention and he was later acquitted, so termination was unjust. Respondent argued that petitioner failed to report for duty or apply for leave, making absence unauthorized.

Ratio Decidendi

Absence due to detention in a criminal case does not constitute sanctioned leave; an employee must inform the employer and seek leave. Subsequent acquittal does not retroactively validate unauthorized absence. Termination for unauthorized absence is valid.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order of termination from service made against the petitioner by the respondent, the University. The petitioner was working as 'Laboratory Boy' with the University w.e.f. 22nd January, 1999. In one crime punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as he was behind bars for more than 48 hours.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad challenging the termination order. The court heard both sides and dismissed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 14
  • Indian Penal Code: Section 307
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Disposes of Parole Petition of Murder Convict, Directing Reconsideration of Parole Application. Rejection Order Set Aside as Arbitrary for Not Considering Past Good Conduct During Previous Furlough/Parole Releases.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Insurance Appeals Challenging Tribunal Awards on Multiplier and Future Prospects; Decision Not Provided in Excerpt.