Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Dr. K. Subramanyam Reddy vs Sri Venkateswara University Rep. By The ... on 19 July, 1995 cites

P.B. Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 February, 1972

6. Since the learned Single Judge has not adverted to any of the issues on merits of the controversy between the parties, the appropriate order in ordinary circumstances, in our view, would have been to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remit the case for a fresh hearing after affording necessary opportunity to the parties of being heard in accordance with law. For the gross violation of the statutes of the University and of the Rule, which must in every case of termination of service on grounds of misconduct, should be attracted, we thought it proper to give to the University an opportunity to file a counter affidavit to the allegations of fact in the writ petition. The University has field a counter-affidavit. The learned Counsel for the University has given us full assistance and produced, as called for by us, the records relevant to the issues in the instant case. There is no denying of the fact that the competent authority granted to the appellant study leave and he availed of the study leave and stayed in Switzerland. He asked for extensions and the University continued obliging him by granting, at least, two extensions. Trouble started, however, when he asked for the third extension for one year and the Vice-Chancellor of the University thought the purpose for which the appellant had been granted leave, permitted study leave for two years only and not more than that. While the above decision was taken, the appellant was abroad. The respondents sent the communication about the rejection of his request for extension of leave as well as of the order of the Vice-Chancellor that his services stood terminated to the Switzerland address of the appellant. The respondents have written full of information about the appellant and how he secured a job in Switzerland but availed study leave as if he was doing some post-doctoral research and that the appellant did not, in any manner, deserve either study leave or extension of the leave for continuing his stay in Switzerland. The appellant has seriously disputed, however, all such allegations on behalf of the respondents. There is, in our view, however, no need in the instant proceeding to deal with controversial facts or such aspects of the controversy between the appellant and the respondents on which, in the event of enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations, a decision can be taken in a proper proceeding. It is conceded and it is obvious that the University communicated to the appellant by a letter dated 10-4-1992 that he must rejoin his duty on 1-7-1992 failing which his service would be terminated and communicated thereafter the order of the Vice-Chancellor vide proceedings dated 9-12-1992.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 30 - M H Beg - Full Document

D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993

7. The question that has assumed importance in this case is, can the University i.e. the employee (sic) to its employee i.e. the appellant, "come and join on a particular date, and if you do not do so, your service is automatically terminated." ? The learned counsel for the University has shown to us a provision in the regulations of the University which says that in case a teacher or employee-workman is absent without sanction of leave for more than a period of five years, his service would stand automatically terminated. In case of the appellant, the automatic termination rule has been applied only for his absence for a period of about three and a half years. It is difficult to acknowledge the presence of a rule of automatic termination in the public law field. Provisions, which are not in consonance with principles of natural justice and mandates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution cannot be used as weapons by the employers to terminate the services of the employees. Law in this behalf has been candidly stated in the case of D.K.Yadav v. J.K.A.Industries Ltd., . wherein it has been pointed out that if there is an allegation of unauthorised absence, that amounts to an allegation of misconduct and if there is an allegation Of misconduct, termination of service without complying with the principles of natural justice would not be justified. The Court has pointed out, "8. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the concerned person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 597 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1