Failed To Report For Duty, Abandoned Services: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Of Chaudhary Charan Singh University Reader
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University.
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court whereby the termination of the Reader in the Psychology Department of Chaudhary Charan Singh University was set aside. The Apex Court noted that he had abandoned his services as he failed to report for duty and was moving around abroad.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University.
The 3-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K.V. Viswanathan said, “Assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the University in terminating the services of respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, on the ground that he had abandoned his services, we feel that the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law; if necessary, after holding a disciplinary enquiry.”
Senior Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma appeared for the Appellant.
Factual Background
The first Respondent-Maharaj Singh, who was working as a Reader in the Psychology Department of the appellant, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, since November 14, 1990, applied for Extra Ordinary Leave, that is, leave without pay, on August 25, 2001. Leave was granted and extended up to May 31, 2002. Belatedly, respondent Maharaj Singh, in the year 2003, again applied for EOL but the same was not extended. The University sent a show-cause notice asking him why the matter should not be referred to the Executive Council, as he had not joined his post and was not undertaking his duties as a Reader in the University.
On the contrary, the Respondent wrote another letter seeking an extension of leave and also prayed for a grant of a promotion. In the Executive Council’s meeting a resolution was passed terminating his services. While the respondent Maharaj Singh was in the United States of America, he challenged the order of his termination but the same was dismissed by Single Bench of Allahabad High Court. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated September 22, 2017.
It was held in the impugned judgment that the University had not followed the applicable statute and had not conducted an enquiry and, therefore, termination of the services of respondent Maharaj Singh, was contrary to law. Accordingly, the resolution passed by the Executive Council and the order passed by the Chancellor of the University were set aside.
Reasoning
As per the Bench, the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law after holding a disciplinary enquiry. “The facts of the case are writ large and show that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, failed to report for duty and was travelling and moving around abroad. Even today, he has not appeared before this Court, despite service of notice”, it said.
It was brought to the Court’s attention that the Respondent had been paid his dues under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, including the share of the University. “We are not even made aware as to whether respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, took up employment anywhere outside India after he had taken EOL way back on 25.08.2000. In case respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, has taken up employment outside India and is working or has set up a business outside India, he clearly abandoned his services with the University”, the Bench stated while noting that no affidavit was filed in this regard.
Allowing the Appeal, the Bench held, “...we feel that the matter should be closed by this Court, setting aside the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017. At the same time, we direct that the University shall not recover the CPF already paid to respondent No. 1, Maharaj Singh. The contempt proceedings pending before the High Court will obviously come to an end and be treated as closed, in terms of this order.”
Cause Title: N.K. Taneja v. Maharaj Singh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 240)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Advocates Amrit Pradhan, Akshat Sharma, Yuvraj Sinh Solanki, AOR Ajit Sharma