APPEAL No 757 of 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 Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
N section 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 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 appellant under article 226 of the Constitution
The facts material for the purposes of this appeal may be briefly stated Me appellant was a permanent employee of the State Transport Corporation Gujarat hereinafter referred to as the Corporation
At the material time he was employed as a Writer in the Visnagar Depot of the Corporation in Mahasana District
On January 15 1962 the appellant applied to the Divisional Controller State Transport Mahasana for leave for 15 days on the ground that he had to attend to his personal work
On January 16 1962 he was transferred from Visnagar to Ambaji where there was a vacancy in the office of the Depot Manager
On January 31 1962 a formal order transferring the appellant from Visnagar to Ambaji was passed and he was directed to join duty at Ambaji
On that date the appellant applied for extension of leave on medical grounds but his request was refused 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 letter to the Divisional Controller intimating him of his inability to join duty as he was 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 Divisional Controller on March 17 1962 and thereafter preferred an appeal to the General Manager of the Corporation
Both of them were rejected
A further appeal preferred by him to the L9SUPCI66 4 4 2 appellate Committee was also unsuccessful
The Committee held that the leave applications of the appellant were made only with a view to evade joining duty at Ambaji
The appellant applied to the High Court of Gujarat under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impleading the Divisional Controller as respondent for the issue of a writ of certriorari to quash the order of dismissal
His petition was dismissed in limine 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 autonomous statutory Corporation formed under the provisions of the 
It is not disputed that the appellant could not invoke the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution
The short question for determination in the appeal is whether 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 correspondence and the circumstances of the case had been given an opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in substance 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 G Corporation
Regulation No 61 provides as follows  The service of an employee who does not hold a permanent appointment in State Transport or a lien on a permanent appointment in any Government Department from which he is transferred are liable to be terminated by the Competent Authority by giving a calendar month s notice or a calendar month s pay in lieu  43 Provided that the services of casual workers and part time 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 days  pay in lieu
 Clauses 3 8 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
 40Failure 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 4b
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 sub cl
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 4b 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 without giving 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 allegations on 44 which such charges are based
In our judgment the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him
The order of termination passed against the appellant is bad in law since it contravenes the provisions of cl 4b of the Regulation and also the principles of natural justice
In all the 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
4b of the regulations
The appeal is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant who was a permanent employee of the respondent State Transport Corporation proceeded on 15 days  leave on January 15 1962 and thereafter applied for an extension of his leave on medical grounds
This extension was refused and although the appellant was directed to report for duty immediately he continued to be absent and wrote to the respondent on March 3 1963 intimating him of his inability to join duty as he was still not well
By an order of the respondent dated March 9 1962 the appellant s services were terminated with 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 the appellant filed a petition for a writ of Certiorari to quash the dismissal order but this petition was dismissed in limine
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in accordance with Clauses 4b 38 and 40 of Schedule A to the Regulations governing his service conditions a charge should have been framed against him and that be was entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment
On the other hand it was the respondents  contention that though the order of dismissal 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 under Regulation 61 was to two months  notice in lieu of pay and that an examination of the correspondence and the circumstances of the case showed that the appellant had been given to opportunity to show cause and that there was in fact and in substance compliance with the rules of natural justice
HELD  The order of termination passed against the appellant must be quashed as it was bad in law since it contravened the provisions of cl 4b of the Regulations and also the principles of natural justice
44 B Clauses 38 and 40 provided that absence without leave and without reasonable cause and failure without sufficient cause to report for duty when directed amount to acts of misconduct
Under clause 4b it was therefore 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 had been made against him