# M. llrnAYATuLLAJI v. RAMASWAMI AND

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 40
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-13
- **Bench:** I'. B. G•.Je;>;Dragaokar C.J, K. N. Waschoo, M. llrnAYATuLLAJ!, V. Ramaswami, P. SATYASARAYA'IA RAJt
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-llrnayatullaji-v-ramaswami-and-3727
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

[)is1r1is.'iti/-t•111plr.Jyef' abst•nt \ritltout lr<n'e and failing to repc>r/ for
duty ,..,tzen dirt~cted-Disnzissed 011 pay111ent of /\\.'O 1110111/is' salary i1: lieu
of '1<>tice-/~egt1hifio11s go\:er11i111:: .H'rl·ice t·ondi1io11 providing for onporrunity 10 shoK' C<lf1.w: <1gai11st proposed pur:islunenr 1101
co1npfi,·d wllh--
Propriety of dis1nissal.
The appellant. \.\'ho \Va"i a permanent employee of the
re . .,pont.lent
State Tran"'port Corpor;1tion, proc\!c<lc<l on 15 days' lc.l.vc on J;inu;irv 15.
1962 ;.ind thereafter applied for an extension of his lcilvc on n11.:Ji.:al
grounds.
1·hi'\ extension ,..,as refused and although the appellant v .. as
. directed to report for duty imreediatcly. he continued to he ahsent and
\l:ro1e to the respondent on ~1arch 3. 1963. intimating him of' his inahilily
to join
duty as he \\'as still not \\"ell.
Ry an order of the respondent
dated ~1arch 9.
196~. the appellant\ services \Vere terminalcd \\.:th effect
from January 16, 1962 on the ground of long absence.
After his representations and an appeal to higher authorities in the
Corporation had been rejected, 1hc appellant filed a petition for " wru of
('ertiorari to quash the dismi~al order, hut this petition
\Vas
di.;,n1i~'icd
in litnin(',
It \\'3S contended on behalf of the appellant that in accordance v.·ith
clauses 4(b), 38 and 40 of Schedule A to the Regulations guvmung hi•
·service conditions, a charge should have been framed against him ~ind th:it
he was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed
·punishment.
On the other hand it v•as the respondents' conrention that
·though the order of dismissal ref~rred to long absence as the cause of
termination. the termination itself \\·a<: not by \.\'ay of puni<:hment and the
only right of the appellant under Regulation 61 \\·as to 1wo month"' Ol)licc
in lieu of pay; and that an examination of the correspondence! and rhe
ci rcum"tances of the case showed that the appellant had heen gi\'cn
;an
-opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in :-.uh .. tance
·compliance \\'ith the rules of natural justice.
HELD : The order of termination passed against the appellant must
be quashed as it v.-as bad in lay.· since it contra\·ened the pio\•isions of
cl. 4(b) of the Regulations and also the principles of
natural
justice.
144 B)
Clau~s 38 and 40 provided that absence without leave and 'vithout
A
B
'
c
D
E
F
'
•
G
•
rca!-lonahle caU$C, and failure, without sunicient cause~ to report for duty
._
when directed amount to acts of mis-conduct.
Under clause 4(h) it wa!I:
therefore obligatory on the pan of 1he respoodont to give 1he appellant a
H
reasonable opportunity to show cause. by providing him wilh a copy of
the charge or chargC""> as "·ell :1'\ 1h~ ~latement of the allC!--"Jtions th:ll
had
heen rnadc Jg.ainst h;nl. f41 fJ
•
•
•
M. N. BAROT v. S. T. CORP. (Raju, J.)
41
A
Crv1L AI_>PELLATE IuRISDicnoN : Civil Appeal No. 757 of
B
1964.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order, dated
the 28th May, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil
Application No. 419 of 1963.
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. A.char, for the respondent.

## Text

MAFATLAL NARAINDAS BAR<>T
\'
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, STATE TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
December 13, 1965
[I'. B. G•.JE;>;DRAGAOKAR C.J., K. N. WASCHOO,
M. llrnAYATuLLAJ!, V. RAMASWAMI AND
P. SATYASARAYA'IA RAJt.:, JJ.]
[)is1r1is.'iti/-t•111plr.Jyef' abst•nt \ritltout lr<n'e and failing to repc>r/ for
duty ,..,tzen dirt~cted-Disnzissed 011 pay111ent of /\\.'O 1110111/is' salary i1: lieu
of '1<>tice-/~egt1hifio11s go\:er11i111:: .H'rl·ice t·ondi1io11 providing for onporrunity 10 shoK' C<lf1.w: <1gai11st proposed pur:islunenr 1101
co1npfi,·d wllh--
Propriety of dis1nissal.
The appellant. \.\'ho \Va"i a permanent employee of the
re . .,pont.lent
State Tran"'port Corpor;1tion, proc\!c<lc<l on 15 days' lc.l.vc on J;inu;irv 15.
1962 ;.ind thereafter applied for an extension of his lcilvc on n11.:Ji.:al
grounds.
1·hi'\ extension ,..,as refused and although the appellant v .. as
. directed to report for duty imreediatcly. he continued to he ahsent and
\l:ro1e to the respondent on ~1arch 3. 1963. intimating him of' his inahilily
to join
duty as he \\'as still not \\"ell.
Ry an order of the respondent
dated ~1arch 9.
196~. the appellant\ services \Vere terminalcd \\.:th effect
from January 16, 1962 on the ground of long absence.
After his representations and an appeal to higher authorities in the
Corporation had been rejected, 1hc appellant filed a petition for " wru of
('ertiorari to quash the dismi~al order, hut this petition
\Vas
di.;,n1i~'icd
in litnin(',
It \\'3S contended on behalf of the appellant that in accordance v.·ith
clauses 4(b), 38 and 40 of Schedule A to the Regulations guvmung hi•
·service conditions, a charge should have been framed against him ~ind th:it
he was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed
·punishment.
On the other hand it v•as the respondents' conrention that
·though the order of dismissal ref~rred to long absence as the cause of
termination. the termination itself \\·a<: not by \.\'ay of puni<:hment and the
only right of the appellant under Regulation 61 \\·as to 1wo month"' Ol)licc
in lieu of pay; and that an examination of the correspondence! and rhe
ci rcum"tances of the case showed that the appellant had heen gi\'cn
;an
-opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in :-.uh .. tance
·compliance \\'ith the rules of natural justice.
HELD : The order of termination passed against the appellant must
be quashed as it v.-as bad in lay.· since it contra\·ened the pio\•isions of
cl. 4(b) of the Regulations and also the principles of
natural
justice.
144 B)
Clau~s 38 and 40 provided that absence without leave and 'vithout
A
B
'
c
D
E
F
'
•
G
•
rca!-lonahle caU$C, and failure, without sunicient cause~ to report for duty
._
when directed amount to acts of mis-conduct.
Under clause 4(h) it wa!I:
therefore obligatory on the pan of 1he respoodont to give 1he appellant a
H
reasonable opportunity to show cause. by providing him wilh a copy of
the charge or chargC""> as "·ell :1'\ 1h~ ~latement of the allC!--"Jtions th:ll
had
heen rnadc Jg.ainst h;nl. f41 fJ
•
•
•
M. N. BAROT v. S. T. CORP. (Raju, J.)
41
A
Crv1L AI_>PELLATE IuRISDicnoN : Civil Appeal No. 757 of
B
1964.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order, dated
the 28th May, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil
Application No. 419 of 1963.
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the appellant.
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. A.char, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Satyanarayana Raju, J.
This . appeal, by special leave,
C
is against the judgment and order of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dated May 28, 1963, dismissing in limine
an application filed by the appellan~ under Art. 226 of the
Constitution.
The facts material for tile purposes of this appeal may be bfiefiy
stated.
The appellant was a permanent employee of the State
D
Tr~port Corporation, Gujar11t, hereinafter referred ta as ~
Corporation. At the material tiJile h.e. was employed as a WritcJ:
in the Visnagar Depot of the Corporation in Mahasana Distri~
On January 15, 1962, th.e appellant applied to the Div®~
Controller, State Transport, Mahasana, for leave for 15 days on
the ground that he had to attend to hia ~~~nal work'. On
E
J&lluary 16, 1962, he was transferred from Visnagai.: to Ambtit
w~re .there was a vacancy in th.e-0ffice ol the. DepQtMaDo11ge.r., Oa.
January 31, 1962, a formal order transferring the aPBCJllan\-~
Visnagar to Ambaji was passed, and he was directed to join duty
at Ambaji.
F
On that date, the appellant applied for extension of leave on·
medical grounds but his request was reftllCd by an order, dated
February 15, 1962. He was directed to report for duty at Ambaji
within 48 hours of the receipt of notice failing which, he. was
warned, he would be removed from service. On March 3, 1962,
the appellant wrote a Jetter to the Divisional Controller intimatini
G
him of his inability to join duty as he wu still not well. To this
letter, he enclosed a medical certificate.
By an order, dated March 9, 1962, the services of the appellant
were terminated with effect from January 16, 1962, on the ground
of long absence.
The appellant made a representation to the
H
Divisional Controller on March 17, 1962 and thereafter preferred
an appeal to the General Manager of the Corporation. Bo.t,ll of
them were rejected. A further appeal preferred by him to th•
L9SupCJ/'6-4
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R.
appellate Committee was also uruucccssful. The Committee held
A
that the leave applications of the appellant were made only with a
view to evade joining ducy at Ambaji.
The appellant applied to the High Court of Gujarat under
Arti. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, impleading the Divisional
Controller as respondent, for the issue of a writ of certriorari to
B
quash the order of dismissal. His petition Wai dismissed in llmbte
on May 28, 1963. On June 17, 1963, the appellant applied for
a certificate to appeal to this Court but it was refused. Thereafter,
he applied for special leave and that was granted by this Court.
It may be stated at the outset that the respondent is an autoc
nomous statutory Corporation formed under the provisions of the
Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. It is not disputed that
the appellant could not invoke the provisions of Art. 311 of the
Constitution.
The short question for determination in the appeal is whether
0
the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against
the proposed punishment as required by regulation No. 61 of the
Regulations which govern the service conditions of the employees
of the Corporation.
It is admitted that no charge was framed
against him nor was he given an opportunity to show cause.
It is contended for the respondent that though the order of
termination referred to long absence as the cause of termination,
the termination itself was not by way of punishment and the only
right of the appellant was to two months' pay in lieu of notice under
regulation No. 61, that assuming that the termination was by way
of punishment, the appellant, as would be evident from the correcpondencc and the circumstances of the case, had been given an
opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in sub·
stance compliance with the rules of natural justice.
We may, at this stage, read the relevant regulations which
admittedly govern the service conditions of the employees of the
Corporation. Regulation No. 61 provides as follows :
"The service of an employee, who docs not hold a
permanent appointment in State Transport or a lien on
a perrnanent appointment in any Government Department from which he is transferred, are liable to be
terminated by the Competent Authority by giving a
calendar month'• notice or a calendar month'• pay ta
lieu:
E
'
G
H
•
'
•
,
..
'
'
•
....
M. N. BAROT v. s. T. CORP. (Raju,!.)
43
A
Provided that the services of casual workers and parttime workers may be terminated without any notice; .
Provided further that a permanent employee of State
Transport shall be entitled to 60 days' notice or 60 qays'
pay in lieu."
B
Clauses 38, 40 and 4(b) of Schedule A to the Regulations provide:
"38. Irregular attendance, absence without leave and
without reasonable cause and absence without permission."
c
D
E
F
G
H
40. Failure, without sufficient cause, to report, when
directed, for duty, on the part of an employee to whom
the leave he has applied for is refused."
"4(b). A person against whom action is proposed
to be taken for any act of misconduct, shall be provided
with a copy of the charge or charges as well as a statement of allegations that have been made against him, and
over which enquiry is being held."
Clause 3 defines two classes of offences named acts of misconduct and minor lapses and delinquencies, respectively and subcl. (ii) of cl. 3 states inter alia that the misconducts are those
specified in Schedule A.
Regulations 38 and 40 provide that irregular attendance,
absence without leave and without reasonable ·cause and failure,
without sufficient cause, to report, when directed, for duty amount
to acts of misconduct. Clause 4(b) is specific and clear. Under
that clause, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent, to give
the appellant a reasonable opportunity to show cause, by providing
him with a copy of the charge or charges, as well as the statement
of the allegations that have been made against him. Admittedly,
the respondent did not frame a charge against the appellant nor
conduct any enquiry.
It is true that the respondent may visit the punishment of discharge or removal from service on a person who has absented
himself without leave and without reasonable cause, but this
cannot entail automatic removal from service withOIJt givini such
person reasonable opportunity to show cause why he be not
removed.
The appellant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity
to show cause which includes an opportunity to deny his guilt and
establish his innocence which he can do. only when he knows
what the charges levelled against him are and the allegatio115 on
SuP!lEME COURT llEPORTS
(1966) 3 S.C.R.
which 1uch charges are based.
In our judgment, the appellant
A
wu entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action
proposed to be taken against him.
•
The order of tennination passed against the appellant is bad
in law since it contravenes the provisions of cl. 4(b) of the
Regulation and also the principles of natural justice. In all the
n
circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the impugned order
must be quashed. A writ of certiorari will accordingly issue
quashing the order of dismissal, but this will not preclude the
respondent from making a fresh enquiry against the appellant
after giving him reasonable opportunity to show cause as provided
under cl. 4(b) of the regulations.
C
The appeal is accordingly allowed, but there will be no order
as to costs.
Appeal .J/qwed.
,
·'
..
...