TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars 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. - D. Murugesan And V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. For the Appellant : R. Yashod Vardhan, Adv. For the Respondent : R. Sankaranarayanan, Adv. for Respondent-1 and P. Wilson, S.C.G.S.C. for Respondent-2 JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The appellant, whose challenge to an order of termination was rejected by the learned Judge in the writ petition, is before us in this appeal. 2. The facts leading to the above appeal are as follows: a) The appellant was appointed as a Faculty in Economics in the 1st respondent institute in July 1989 and after completion of probation, he executed an agreement to serve the Institute for 2 years. In 1992 he was sent for a training programme to U.K., and after his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that the principle of useless formality cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case and that if an enquiry had been conducted, the appellant would have easily established that he had valid reasons for his absence and that the failure to hold an enquiry, resulted in a grave injustice being meted out to the appellant. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that originally the appellant applied for earned leave on 17-11-1994 and the same was sanctioned. Subsequently, there were some mishaps in the family followed by his mother's sickness and his own ill-health, forcing him to seek extension of leave from time to time and that if an enquiry had been conducted, he would have convinced the disciplinary authority not to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, the conduct of an enquiry would have changed the entire complexion of the game and hence the invocation of the principle of useless formality by the learned Judge was erroneous. 5. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Apex court in (1) State Bank of Pati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rejected by a letter dated 30-1-1995 and he was asked to report for duty immediately. But the appellant did not relent and went on to submit a leave letter on 2-3-1995 seeking extension of leave by one more month. Even according to the appellant, he did not send any communication to the Institute after his letter dated 2-3-1995, for about 8 months and sent his last letter only on 3-11-1995, by which time, the curtain was already drawn. 8. The above 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 al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of discharge was not passed in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings. 11. In Uptron India Ltd v. Shammi Bhan and Anr. [1998]1SCR719 relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Supreme court held in para 25 that any clause in certified Standing Orders providing for automatic termination of services of a permanent employee not directly related to production in a factory or industrial establishment, would be bad if it does not purport to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employee. The said judgment is also not useful to the appellant, due to the following reasons: (i) the case before the Supreme Court related to an industrial worker who can never be treated on par with a Faculty member involved in research, like the appellant (ii) in the case before the Supreme Court, a lady employee who went on maternity leave, overstayed her leave and the management terminated her services within 3 months of overstayal of leave. In the case on hand, repeated instructions of the employer to the appellant to report for duty, was defied for over 8 months. (iii) More over, the words not directly related to production in a factory or industrial establishment used by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding the door locked. It is only thereafter that the Institute chose to publish a Notice in the newspapers, which they did in The Hindu and Dina Thanthi in their Chennai editions dated 18-11-1995. Thus the 1st respondent Institute exhausted all avenues of service and went for paper publication only as a last resort. b) Moreover the Newspapers in which the publications were made in this case, are the most popular and widely circulated dailies in Chennai, unlike in the case before the Supreme Court, where the Supreme court found no evidence on record relating to the circulation of the Newspaper in which the order of dismissal was published in that case. Therefore, the citation relied upon by the learned Counsel is of no use to him. 13. The judgment in Aligarh Muslim University and Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan AIR2000SC2783 is relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, for the proposition that useless formality theory is an exception and that in must be applied only in cases where there are admitted and indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion . According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this case does not fall under the said exception. But we are unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
