# • ' \ I. N. SUBBA REDDY v. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1013
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-10
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, ]Aswa:H Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-n-subba-reddy-v-andhra-university-ors-6721
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Seri·it.:e-Meaning of conditions of service-Tennination by
punisl11nent and termination sin1pliciter-Administratio11
Manual
of
University-Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24.
way of
A.ndhra
The appellant joined the Andhra University as a Senior Lecturer in 1960.
Jn 1967, he was promoted as Professor.
The appellant entered into an agreement with the University as required by the conditions of service. He \Vas confirmed as a Professor in October 1968. In October, 1973, the Syndicate passed
a resolution determining the agreement of service with the appellant under
s. 24 of Chanter V of Administration !v1anual of the Andhra Uni'lersity.
A
cheque_ for the salary for the six months being the notice period \vas also sent
along with the notice of termination of service.
Clause J 0 of the agreement
provided for the termination of service simpliciter on giving 6 months notice
or a salary in lieu of such notice.
Section 24 also authorised the Syndicate
to terminate the service of a confirmed teacher by giving 6 months notice or
salary in lieu of notice. Section 7 of the University Code provided for suspension
or abolition of any professorship, readership. Section 8 provided for suspension
or compulsory retirement for sufficient cause after due investigation. Section 9
<!1!..iliorised the Syndicate to remove a teacher for misconduct on his p;.irt or
for breach by him of one or more of the terms of the contract.
Section J 0
authorised the Syndicate to terminate services of a teacher on the ground of illhealth. Section 11 prescribed the procedure for removal of a teacher. Section
12 bars a claim for damages or compensation by a teacher against whom a
disciplinary action is taken.
The appellant filed a suit challenging the validity of termination of his
service which he withdrew later on.
He thereafter filed a writ petition.
In
the \lrrit petition, the appellant challenged the validity of the order terminating
the service as
well as vires
of s.
24
of
the
Administration
Manual.
It was
also
alleged
that
the
action
in
terminating
his
service
was
,nala fide and that it was with the ulterior object of circumventing the procedure
prescribed by sections 9 and 11 of the University Code. It was also contended
that s. 24 of the agreement which provides for termination of service without
assigning any reason was void being repugnant to ss. 8 to 12 of Chapter XXIX
of the University Code.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that the impugned action was neither taken as a measure of punishment for
any misconduct on the part of the appellant nor did it involve the breach of
mandatory statutory obligations or any principle of natural justice.
In appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
1. Section 24 is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Syndicate.
2. The said section 24 and clause 10 of the agreement being inconsistent
with sections 7 to 12 of the University Code were void and ineffectual.
3. The services of the appellant could not be terminated except on the
ground mentioned in sections 7 to 10 of the University Code.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
HELD : 1. The expression 'conditions of service' means all those conditions
H
which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his
apoointment till his retirement and even beyond it in matters like pension etc.
The Syndicate has power to define terms and conditions of service of teachers of
1013
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
lhe. Uniyersity. Section 24 undoubtedly lays down a condition of service of tie
Un1vers1ty teachers and, therefore, cannot be said to be ultra vires the power!I
of the Syndicate. [1018C-D, G-H]
2: Se_ction~ 7 .t~ 12 of the U:niversity Ccxie have nothing to do with the
term~nation. sun_phclf~r .of the services of a teacher without casting any aspersion
on him, which 1s a distinct and separate matter and is provided for in section 24
and clause 10 of the agreement.
As such, neither section 24 nor section 10
can be held to be vo

## Text

•
' ...
\
I. N. SUBBA REDDY
v.
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY & ORS.
April 5, I ~76
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND ]ASWA:H SINGH, JJ.]
Civil Seri·it.:e-Meaning of conditions of service-Tennination by
punisl11nent and termination sin1pliciter-Administratio11
Manual
of
University-Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24.
way of
A.ndhra
The appellant joined the Andhra University as a Senior Lecturer in 1960.
Jn 1967, he was promoted as Professor.
The appellant entered into an agreement with the University as required by the conditions of service. He \Vas confirmed as a Professor in October 1968. In October, 1973, the Syndicate passed
a resolution determining the agreement of service with the appellant under
s. 24 of Chanter V of Administration !v1anual of the Andhra Uni'lersity.
A
cheque_ for the salary for the six months being the notice period \vas also sent
along with the notice of termination of service.
Clause J 0 of the agreement
provided for the termination of service simpliciter on giving 6 months notice
or a salary in lieu of such notice.
Section 24 also authorised the Syndicate
to terminate the service of a confirmed teacher by giving 6 months notice or
salary in lieu of notice. Section 7 of the University Code provided for suspension
or abolition of any professorship, readership. Section 8 provided for suspension
or compulsory retirement for sufficient cause after due investigation. Section 9
<!1!..iliorised the Syndicate to remove a teacher for misconduct on his p;.irt or
for breach by him of one or more of the terms of the contract.
Section J 0
authorised the Syndicate to terminate services of a teacher on the ground of illhealth. Section 11 prescribed the procedure for removal of a teacher. Section
12 bars a claim for damages or compensation by a teacher against whom a
disciplinary action is taken.
The appellant filed a suit challenging the validity of termination of his
service which he withdrew later on.
He thereafter filed a writ petition.
In
the \lrrit petition, the appellant challenged the validity of the order terminating
the service as
well as vires
of s.
24
of
the
Administration
Manual.
It was
also
alleged
that
the
action
in
terminating
his
service
was
,nala fide and that it was with the ulterior object of circumventing the procedure
prescribed by sections 9 and 11 of the University Code. It was also contended
that s. 24 of the agreement which provides for termination of service without
assigning any reason was void being repugnant to ss. 8 to 12 of Chapter XXIX
of the University Code.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that the impugned action was neither taken as a measure of punishment for
any misconduct on the part of the appellant nor did it involve the breach of
mandatory statutory obligations or any principle of natural justice.
In appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
1. Section 24 is ultra vires the powers conferred on the Syndicate.
2. The said section 24 and clause 10 of the agreement being inconsistent
with sections 7 to 12 of the University Code were void and ineffectual.
3. The services of the appellant could not be terminated except on the
ground mentioned in sections 7 to 10 of the University Code.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
HELD : 1. The expression 'conditions of service' means all those conditions
H
which regulate the holding of a post by a person right from the time of his
apoointment till his retirement and even beyond it in matters like pension etc.
The Syndicate has power to define terms and conditions of service of teachers of
1013
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
H
1014
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
lhe. Uniyersity. Section 24 undoubtedly lays down a condition of service of tie
Un1vers1ty teachers and, therefore, cannot be said to be ultra vires the power!I
of the Syndicate. [1018C-D, G-H]
2: Se_ction~ 7 .t~ 12 of the U:niversity Ccxie have nothing to do with the
term~nation. sun_phclf~r .of the services of a teacher without casting any aspersion
on him, which 1s a distinct and separate matter and is provided for in section 24
and clause 10 of the agreement.
As such, neither section 24 nor section 10
can be held to be void on the ground of repuanancy to sections 7 to 12.
[1019D-EJ
0
3 .. The pres~nt case _is merely of termination of service simpticitcr without
attaching any stigma which is governed by the conditions of service specified in
the contract of employment. Case of Sirsi Municipality v. Cacelia Korn Francis
Tellis [1973} 3 S.C.R. 348, relied on.
Relationship of master a11.d servant is
governed purely by contract of employment.
Any breach of .contract in such
a case is enforced by a suit for wrongful dismissal and damages.
In the preseat
case the services have been terminated sirnpliciter in accordance, with the terms
of the contract.
f1019E-G, H]
C!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1632 of
..
1974.
~
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
10th April, 1974 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in
tion No. 579 of 1974.
dated the
Writ PetiR. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis, for the appellant.
B. Sen, S. Venkata Reddy and G. N. Rao, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the, Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the
judgment and order dated April 10, 1974, of the High Court
of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad passed in Writ Petition No. 579 of
1974 upholding the resolution dated October
28, 1973, of
the
Syndicate of the Andhra University (conveniently referred to hereinafter as 'the Syndicate') terminating the services of the appellant
by payment to him of salary and
allowances for six months in lieu
of notice for six calendar months under section 24 of Chapter V of
the Administration Manual of the University and clause !O(b) of the
written contract dated October 28, 1967.
Briefly stated, the facts leading to this appeal are :
The appellant joined the Anthropology Department of the Andhra University
as a Senior Lecturer in 1960.
Jn course of time, he was promoted
as Professor of Anthropolagy with effect from
October 1,
1967,
pursuant to a resolution of the Syndicate dated September 26, 1967.
The cc"1ditions of service annexed to the communication , of
the
Registrar of the University informing the appellant that the Syndicate by its aforesaid resolution dated September 26, 1967, had ordered that the appellant be appointed Professor in the department of
Anthropology with effect from Octoober I, 1967, inter alia stated:
"Every teacher, other than those appointed temporarily
for one year or less, shall enter into a written contract with
the University and get it executed within one month of the
l
•
). __ ...(
I. N. SUBB.A REDDY v. ANDERA UNIVERSITY (Jaswant Singh,!.) I 015
date of his joining duty and no salary can be drawn unless
the contract is executed ..... .
When a teacher is pro111oted from one grade to another
he shall be treated as a new entrant in that grade and the
appointee in the new grade shall be placed on probation for
a period not exceeding 1 year and shall be required to execute a fresh contract. .....
Teachers of the University shall ordinarily be appointed in the first instance on probation for a term not exceeding two years and shall be eligible for confirmation at the
end of that period, provided their work is satisfactory. In
the case of those who have been teachers before or
have
shown exceptional merit, the Syndicate may fix a shorter
period.
Teachers so confirmed shall be eligible to hold
their appointments until they are 60 years of age subject
to the provisions of sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Chapter
XXX,lX of Vol. 1 of, the University Code .....
The appointments arc subject to the statutes, ordinances
and regulations, etc. of the University auhorities that are
current now or may be passed from time to time in respect
of the University teachers''.
On October 28, 1967, the appellant entered into an agreement
with the University as required by the aforementioned conditions of
service and section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual
of the University.
Clause 10 of the agreement which contained a
reciprocal covenant ran thus :-
"10. That the party of the first part will continue in
the service of the University under the terms and conditions
herein contained.
(a) Provided always that the party of the first part may
determine this agreement on any day after CONFIRMATION by giving to the University a notice in writing of his
intention to that effect at least six calendar months before
such day and if such notice shall be given this agreement
shall terminate on that day accordingly.
(b) Provided further that this agreement may be determined on any day after confirmation by the Synd:cate by
giving the party of the first part a notice without assigning
reasons in writing of its intention to that effect ~t least six
calendar months before such a day or paying six month'
salary in lieu of such notice; and if, such notice is given or
payment made, this agreement shall terminate that
day
accordingly and the party of the first part shall not have
the right of appeal to any other officer or authority against
such termination.
( c) Provided further that this agreement may be deter-
, mined on any day by the Syndicate if the Senate shall resolve to abolish the post held by the party of the first part."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
I 016
SUPREME COUKT REPORTS
(1976) 3 S.C.R.
The appcUant was confirmed as Professor of Anthropology with
effect from October 1, 1968.
•
On October 28, 1973, the
Syndicate passed
a resolution deterj-'
mining the aforesaid agreement which the appellant had entered into
with the University on his promotion and appointment as Professor
B
of Anthropology.
Intimation of the determination of the agreement
was communicated to the appeUant
by registered post which was
received by him on November 3, 1973.
The said communication
was in these terms: -
"Under section 24 of Chapter V of
the
Administration
Manual of the Andhra University and Cl.
(10)
of the
Agreement entered into on 28-10-1967 bet,ween Dr. I. N.
C
Subba
Reddi on one part and the Andhra University
on the other part, the said agreement is hereby determined.
A cheque bearing No. 460292 dated 28-10-1973 for Rs.
9,316/15 P. on the State Bank of India, Waltair, being the
salary and dearness allowance for six months is hereby
enclosed as provided for in the
aforesaid S. 24
and CI.
D
E
F
G
H
lO(b)".
The appellant thereupon filed a suit. being suit No. 910 of 1973,
in the Court of District Munsiff,
Visakhapatnam
questioning the
validity of the .aforesaid resolution dated October 28, 1973 of the
Syndicate.
In the said suit, an ex-parle temporary injunction was
granted on November 5, 1973, restraining the respondents herein from
implementing the resolution passed by the Syndicate.
Aggrieved by
this injunction, the respondents
filed an appeal
(CMA No. 41 of
1973) which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Viskhapatnam by order dated November 28, 1973.
The respondents thereupon filed a revision petition to the High Court which by its order
dated January 25, 1974, allowed the same and vacated the injunction
holding inter alia that only a suit for damages and not for declaration
and continuance in service lay.
After the acceptance of the revision petition by the High Court,
the appeUant withdrew the aforesaid suit and filed a writ petition in
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on January 29,
1973 challenging the validity of the aforesaid resolution of the Syndicate and the vires of section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration
Manual.
In that petition, it was inter alia averred by the appellant
that the action of the Syndicate terminating his services was mala fide,
and that it was with the ulterior object of circumventing the procedure
prescribed by sections 9 and 11 of Chapter XXIX of the University
Code and to camouflage the punishment of dismissal visited on him
for the legal action that he had taken earlier against the University
that the Syndicate purported to act under section 24 of the Administration Manual and clause
10 (b) of the
agreement.
It was further
asserted by the appellant that section 24 of Chapter V of t!he Administration Manual was ultra vires the powers of the Syndicate and clause
lO(b) of the agreement which provided for termination of his services
without assigning any reason was void being repugnant to sections 8
to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code.·
;
•
r. N. SUB BA REDDY v. ANDHRA TJNIVERSITY (Jaswant Singh, J.)
I 017
The petition was vigorously contested by the respondents.
While
emphatically denying that the impugned action was maJa fide or that it
had been taken as a measure of punishment, they averred that the relationship between the appellant and the University which was one of
master and servant and was regulated by the contract of service entered
into between the appellant and the University had been validly determined in accordance with the provisions
of section 24 of Chapter
V of the Administration Manual and clause lO(b) of the aforesaid
contract of service which were perfectly legal and valid.
In view of the importance of the question involved in the writ
.petition viz. whether the University could take recourse to the aforesaid
contract entered into between it and the appellant for terminating the
the services of the latter without regard to the provisions of sections
8 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code and whether section
24 of Chapter V of the' Administration Manuar was intra vires
the
powers of the Syndicate, a learned Single Judge of the High Court
before whom the petition was placed for hearing referred the same for
decision to a Division Bench. Following some decisions of this Court,
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition
holding that the impugned action had neither been taken as a measure
of punishment for any misconduct on the part of the appellant nor
did it involve a. breach of any mandatory statutory obligation or any
principle of natural justice; that in view of the fact that the impugned
resolution communicated to the appellant was cumulatively based upon
section 24 of Chapter V of the
Administration Manual which was
intra vires and clause 10 of the agreement which was valid and binding,
the appellant could no: have any legal grievance which could
be
redressed by a court of law and that no writ lay to quash the order
termiirnting the contract of service.
Mr. Garg, counsel for the aPPellant, has
assailed
the
aforesaid
resolution of the Syndicate terminating the services of the appellant
on three grounds, viz.
(I) that section 24 of Chapter V of the
Administration Manual is ultra vires the powers conferred on the
Syndicate; (2) that the
said
section 24 and clause
lO(b) of the
aforesaid agreement between the appellant and the University being
inconsistent with section 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University
Code were void and
ineffectual and (3) that
the services of the
appellant could not be terminated except on the grounds mentioned
in sections 7 to 10 of the University Code.
We shall deal with these contentions seriatim.
For a
proper
consideration of the first contention, it is necessary to notice section
24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual,, clauses (c) (iii) and
(d) of section 19, section 39 (f), section 34 and section 42 of the
Andhra University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
Section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual runs as
follows:-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"24.
The Syndicate may determine the services of a
H
tea~her after
confirmation on
any day
by giving him a
notice
WITHOUT
assigning
reasons in
writing of its
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 S.C.R.
A
•
intention to that effect at least six calendar months before
such a day or paying him six months salary in lieu of such
notice. It shall be sufficient service of a n.otice
by
the
Syndicate, if the notice be signed by the Registrar or such
other person as may be authorised in this behalf by the
Syndicate and be delivered at or sent by registered post to
the address of the teacher with ac,knowledgemen: due".
>..j
B
c
D
E
F
G
Clause (d) of section 19' of the Act confers power on the Syndicate
to suspend or dismiss a teacher of the
University (subject to such
ordinances as may be made in this behalf) which obviously implies a
power to take action for misconduct.
Clause (c) (ill) of section 19
of the Act empowers the Syndicate to fix the emoluments of the
teachers of the University and to define their duties and conditions of
service subject to such statutes as may be prescribed in this behalf
under section 39 (f). As explained by this Court is State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. v. Shardul Singh('), the expression '·conditions of service'
means all those conditions which regulate the holding of, a post by a
person right from the time of his appointment till his retirement and
even beyond it, in matters like pension etc.
Section 29(f) of the
Act lays down that subject to Uie provisions of the Act, the statutes
(which can be framed by the Senate which is the supreme governing
body of the University) may provide for the classification and the mode
of appointment of the teachers of the University.
It does not say
that statutes can be made laying down the terms and conditions of
service of the teachers nor does it put any fetter on ihe power of the
Syndicate to define the terms and conditions of service of the teachers
focluding the condition relating to termination of their services otherwise than by way of dismissal or removal.
It follows, therefore, that
the power conferred by clause (c) (iii) of section 19 of the Act is a
power quite distinct and apart from the power to suspend or dismiss a
teacher for misconduct and includes
within its ambit power to lay
down a condition relating to early termination of service of a teacher
withont casting any aspersion on him by giving hlm a notice for
a
specified period or on payment to him of salary and allowances in lieu
of the notice although he may be eligible to continue in service upto a
specified age.
Section 34 of the Act lays down that every salaried
officer and teacher of the University shall be appointed under a written
contract.
Section 42 of the Act inter alia empowers the Syndicate to
make Ordinances in consultation with the Academic Council with
regard to all matters which by the Act or by the statutes may be provided for by the ordinances.
The analysis of the aforesaid porvisions of the Act makes it clear
I
.. -\
that the Syndicate is invested with untrammelled power to define the
')
terms and conditions of service of the teachers of the University.
Now
1'
section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual being undoubtedly a condition of service of the University teachers, we are
unable to understand how it is 1iltra vires the powers of the Syndicate.
H
Tho first contention raised on behalf of the appellant is, therefore,
repelled.
(1)
[19701 3 S.C.R. 302.
f
I
... /
I. N. SUBBA REDDY v. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY (Jaswant Singh, J.) I 019
Let us now see if the above quoted section 24 of Chapter V of the
A
Administrn'.ion Manual and clause 10 of the agreement are void being
repugnant to and inconsistent with sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX
of the University Code.
Section 7 of Chapter XXIX of the Code
provides for suspension or abolition of any Professorship, Readership,
Lecturership or other teaching post.
Section 8 of Chapter XXIX of
the Code empowers the Syndicate to suspend any teacher of the
University for a maximum period of one year or to require him to
B
retire on sufficient cause shown and after due investigation.
Section
9 of Chapter XXIX of the
Code confers power on the Syndicate to
renrnve a teacher for misconduct on his part or of breach by him of
one or more of the terms of the contract which he has entered into
with the University, which, in the opinion of the Syndicate, makes him
unfit to hold the post.
Section 10 of Chapter XXIX of the Code
invests the Syndicate with power to terminate the services of a teacher
C
on the ground of ill health.
Section 11 of Chapter XXIX of the Code
prescribes the procedure for removal of a teacher. It also confers
the right of appeal on the teacher who is removed from service or is
suspended.
Section 12 of Chapter XXIX of the Code bars a claim
for damages or compensation by a teacher against whom disciplinary
action is taken i.e. who is suspended or removed from service under
sections 8 and 9 of Chapter XXIX of the Code.
D
The aforesaid sections of the Code have nothing to do with termination simpliciter of the services of a teacher without casting any
aspersion on him, which is a distinct and separate matter and is provided for in section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual and
clause !O(b) of the aforesaid contract of service.
As such, neither
section 24 of Chapter V of the Administration Manual nor clause IO(b)
of the agreement can be held to be void on the ground of repugnancy
to sections 7 to 12 of Chapter XXIX of the University Code.
This takes us to the third and last contention raised on behalf of
the appellant which is also devoid of substance.
The instant case, it
E
will be seen, is neither a case of abolition nor suspension of a post as
contemplated by section 7, nor of suspension as contemplated by
section 8, nor of dismissal or removal for misconduct as contemplated
F
by section 8, nor of termination of services on the ground of ill-health.
It is, in our opinion,, a c.;ase ofl termination of s~rvice simpliciter without attaching any stigma which is governed by the conditions of service
specified in the aforesaid contract of employment which the Syndicate
was empowered to lay down under section 19(c) (iii) of the Act and
is clearly covered by the decision of this Court in Sirsi Municipality
by its President v. Cecelia Korn Francis Teel/is(') where one of us,
G
namely the learned Chief Justice after an exhaustive review of the case
law bearing on ·'.he matter observed :
"Relationship of master and servant is governed purely by
contract of employment.
Any breach of contract in such
a case is enforced by a suit for wrongful dismissal and
damages.
Just as a contract of emp!Oyment is not· capable
H
of specific
performance similarly breach of contract of
employment is not capable of finding a declaratory judgment
(I) [1973] 3 S.C.R. 348.
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 3 s.c.R.
of subsistence of employment.
A declaration of uolawful
termination and restoration to service in such a case of
contract of employment would be indirectly an instance of
specific performance of contract for personal services.
Such
a declaration is not permissible under the law of Specific
Relief Act. .... Termination or dismissal of what is described as a pure contract of master and servant is not
declared to be a nullity however wrongful or illegal it may
be.
The reason is that dismissal in breach of contract is
remedied by damages."
That the impugned action is not invalid would also be clear from
a perusal of another decision of this Court in Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Balbir Saran Goel(').
There the respondent, who was an
employee of the appellant undertaking, established under the Delhi
Transport Authority Act, challenged his demotion by filing a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitutions.
After the dismissal of the
petition, the appellant-undertaking passed an order terminating the
services of the respondent stating that they were no longer required
and that one month's salary in lieu of notice would be paid.
The
respondent thereupon filed a suit seeking a declaration that the ordar
of his dismissal was illegal.
On the questions : ( 1) whether the
respondent's services could be terminated under Regulation 9(b) by
giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without complying
with the procedure of enquiry prescribed by Regulation 15(2) (c) and
(2) whether although the order was made in perfectly harmless and
innocuous terms and purported to be within Regulation 9 (b) it was a
mere camouflage or cloak for inflicting punishment for breach of
standing order 1 7 in as much as the respondent had approached the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting
the departmental remedies, it was held:
"(1) Even if it be assumed that the law is the same as
would be applicable to a case governed by Article 311, it
was difficult to say that the services of the respondent were
not merely terminated· in accordance with Regulation 9 (b)
which governed the conditions of his employment.
It may
be that the motive for termination of his services was the
breach of Standing Order 17 i.e. of filing a writ petition in
the High Court against the demotion without exhausting
departmental remedies but the question of motive is immaterial.
No charge-sheet was preferred under Regulation 15
nor was any enquiry held in accordance therewith before the
order under Regulation 9(b) was made.
(ii) As regards the punishment having been inflicted for
misconduct the order being a mere camouflage, no such
question could arise in the present case.
Regulation 9(b1
clearly empowered the authorities to terminate the services
after giving one month's notice for pay in lieu of notice.
The order was unequivocaHy made in te1ms of that Regulation.
Even if the employers of the respondent thought
that he was a cantankerous person and it was not desirable
(!) (1970] 3 S.C.R. 757.
,
'
tt I ,.
I. N. SUBBA REDDY v. ANDHRA UNIVERSITY (Jaswant Singh, J.)1021
'
to retain him in service, it was open to them to terminate
his services in terms of Regulation
9 (b) and it was not
necessary to dismiss him by way of punishment for misconduct.
If the employer chooses to terminate the services
~. ,.
in accordance with clause (b) of Regulation 9 after giving
one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof it cannot amount
to termination of service for misconduct
within
the
. meaning of clause (a).
It is only when some punishment
is inflicted on the nature specified in Regulation 15 for misconduct that the procedure laid down therein for an enquiry
etc. becomes applicable."
The decision of the l:fouse of Lords in McCl£1land's(') case on which
itrong reliance is placed by Mr. Garg is not at all helpful to the
appellant. In the case, the dismissal of the plaintiff was on the ground
of redundancy of the staff whidh was not one of the grounds specified
in the terms and conditions of service.
In the present case, no such
difficulty could arise as the terms and conditions of service specified
in the contract of employment entered into between the appellant and
1 the University under
section
34 of the Act contained an express
provision for termination of his services
by six month's notice on
either side.
Thus all the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant having
failed, the appeal cannot succeed and is hereby dismissed.
In the
circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear and pay their
own costs of the appeal.
P.H.P.
(1) (1957) W.L.R. 594.
15-125 SCi{16
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D