Supreme Court Upholds Due Process in Service Termination: Kerala Agricultural University vs. T.P. Murali (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 04 September 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 658

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can an employer terminate an employee’s services for overstaying leave without following the mandatory procedure for disciplinary inquiry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case involving the Kerala Agricultural University and one of its former Assistant Professors. The court examined whether the university had followed the correct procedure before terminating the employee’s services for unauthorized absence. The bench comprised Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal, with the judgment authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

T.P. Murali, the respondent, joined the Kerala Agricultural University as an Assistant Professor on 24 March 1988. After working for approximately 11 years, he took a long Leave Without Allowance (LWA) for 20 years, from 5 September 1999 to 4 September 2019, to work at a Community College in Pennsylvania, USA. This leave was granted in four blocks of five years each.

Murali did not rejoin his duties on 4 September 2019, the expiry date of his LWA, as he was in the USA and reportedly suffering from serious health issues. Although he expressed his intention to rejoin via email, he could not return due to his health and later due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He returned to India in July 2020 on the first Vande Bharat flight and requested to rejoin. However, the university did not allow him to rejoin and instead issued a charge memo on 15 July 2020, stating that he had been on unauthorized absence since 5 September 2019, constituting a statutory violation and misconduct.

A departmental inquiry was initiated after the university found Murali’s reply to the charge memo unsatisfactory. The Inquiry Committee concluded that Murali had violated the LWA conditions by not rejoining before the end of the 20-year leave period. Based on this report, the Vice-Chancellor, using delegated powers from a resolution of the Executive Council dated 23 January 2021, terminated Murali’s services effective from 5 September 2019.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Murali challenged his termination by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the petition on 21 December 2021, stating that Murali had violated the rules by not resuming his duties immediately after his leave expired. The judge found his explanations regarding illness and COVID-19 unacceptable and did not condone his overstay.

Murali appealed the single judge’s decision, and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the single judge’s order on 26 August 2022. The Division Bench quashed the termination order, citing that the university had not followed the prescribed procedure for conducting a disciplinary inquiry. Although the court did not order reinstatement due to Murali reaching superannuation, it directed the university to disburse his pensionary benefits.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the following rules:

• The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.
• The Kerala Service Rules and its Appendix, specifically Rule 24A and Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA, which permit a maximum of 20 years of LWA.

Rule 24A of the Kerala Service Rules states:

“24A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if an Officer who availed himself of leave without allowances to take up employment abroad or within the country or for joining spouse for a total period of twenty years, whether continuously or in broken periods, does not return to duty immediately on the expiry of the leave, his service shall be terminated after following the procedure laid down in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.”

Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA of the Kerala Service Rules states:

“6. The maximum period of leave that may be sanctioned to an officer during his entire service shall be limited to 20 years and such leave shall not extent beyond twelve months before their date of superannuation. If the officer who has availed himself of the leave without allowances for a total period of 20 years whether continuously or in broken periods, does not return to duty immediately on the expiry of the leave, his service shall be terminated after following the procedure in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. This condition shall be incorporated in every order sanctioning such leave.”

Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties, including termination. It mandates that before a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority must record its satisfaction that there is a prima facie case for taking action against the employee.

Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 states:

“15. Procedure for imposing major penalties. – (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants’ (Inquiry) Act, 1850 (Central Act XXXVII of 1850), and the Public Servants’ (Inquires) Act, 1122 (Act XI of 1122), no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in items (v) to (ix) of rule 11 (1) shall be passed except after an inquiry held as far a s may be, in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) (a) Whenever a complaint is received, or on consideration of the report of an investigation, or for other reasons, the disciplinary authority or the appointing authority or any other authority empowered by Government in this behalf is satisfied that th ere is a prima facie case for taking action against a Government Servant, such authority shall frame definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the Government servant together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. The accused Government Servant shall be required to submit within a reasonable time to be specified in that behalf a written statement of his def ence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. The Government servant may on his request be permitted to peruse or take extracts from the records pertaining to the case for the purpose of preparing his written statement; provided that the disciplinary or other authority referred to above may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse him such access, if in its opinion such records are not strictly relevant to the case or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. After the written state ment is received or if no such statement is received within the time allowed, the authority referred to above may, if it is satisfied that a formal enquiry should be held into the conduct of the Government servant, forward the record of the case to the authority or officer referred to in clause (b) and order that a formal enquiry may be conducted.”

Arguments

The Senior Counsel for the Kerala Agricultural University, Shri R. Basant, argued that the respondent, T.P. Murali, had violated service rules by not rejoining his duties immediately after the expiry of his 20-year LWA. The university contended that the rules mandate termination of service for such unauthorized absence, following the prescribed procedure.

The Senior Counsel for the respondent, Shri Gaurav Agrawal, argued that the university had not followed the correct procedure for disciplinary inquiry as mandated by Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. He contended that the university failed to record its prima facie satisfaction that there was a case for disciplinary action before initiating the inquiry. Additionally, he argued that Murali’s failure to rejoin was due to genuine reasons, including health issues and travel restrictions due to COVID-19.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the termination of the respondent’s services was valid given the procedure followed by the Kerala Agricultural University.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court primarily relied on the following legal provisions:

• Rule 24A of the Kerala Service Rules.
• Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA of the Kerala Service Rules.
• Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

These rules were considered to determine the procedure for termination of service due to unauthorized absence after availing LWA.

Judgment

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• The court relied on Rule 24A of the Kerala Service Rules and Clause 6 of Appendix XIIA of the Kerala Service Rules to establish the conditions for termination of service for unauthorized absence after LWA.
• The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, which requires the disciplinary authority to record its prima facie satisfaction before initiating a formal inquiry.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural lapse on the part of the Kerala Agricultural University. The court emphasized that the university failed to adhere to the mandatory requirement of recording its prima facie satisfaction before initiating a departmental inquiry, as required by Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The court also took note of the fact that the respondent had expressed his intention to resume his duties and could not do so due to health issues and COVID-19 related travel restrictions, which demonstrated his bona fides.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision, stating that the Kerala Agricultural University had not followed the mandatory procedure for initiating a disciplinary inquiry. The court emphasized that Rule 15(2)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, requires the disciplinary authority to record its satisfaction that there is a prima facie case for taking action against the employee before holding a formal inquiry. The court found that no such satisfaction was recorded in this case.

The Court observed that:

“It is a cardinal principle of law that if a statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner than it should be done in that fashion only and not otherwise. Therefore, recording of satisfaction before holding a departmental inquiry was mandatory.”

The court also noted:

“The bona fides of the respondent in this regard stand fortified by his e-mails and the medical papers on record.”

The court did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedure in disciplinary matters.

Key Takeaways

• Mandatory Procedure: Employers must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure for initiating disciplinary inquiries, particularly the requirement to record prima facie satisfaction before proceeding with a formal inquiry.
• Due Process: Failure to follow due process can invalidate disciplinary actions, even if there are grounds for such action.
• Bona Fides: The court considers the bona fides of the employee, especially when circumstances beyond their control prevent them from adhering to strict timelines.
• Importance of Rules: The judgment underscores the importance of following the exact procedure outlined in statutes and rules.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The High Court’s direction to the university to disburse pensionary benefits to the respondent was upheld.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that any disciplinary action, especially termination of service, must strictly adhere to the procedure prescribed by law. The court reiterated the principle that when a statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Kerala Agricultural University, upholding the High Court’s decision that quashed the termination order of T.P. Murali. The court emphasized that the university failed to follow the mandatory procedure of recording its prima facie satisfaction before initiating a departmental inquiry. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to due process in disciplinary proceedings and highlights the need for employers to follow the prescribed procedures strictly.