IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1580 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 07.12.2010 Guru Nanak Dev University Amritsar and others … Appellants Versus Jaspal Singh …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon’ble Ms.Justice Ritu Bahri Present: Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate for the Caveator. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letter Patent is directed against judgment dated 8.7.2010 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that absence from duty cannot constitute basis of termination order unless the principles of natural justice are observed followed by an enquiry which may be held against such an employee. The provisions of Statute 74 which empowered the appellant authority that the office held by an employee would be declared vacant if he fails to join after notice. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Narandas Barot v. D.Rathod, Divisional Controller, State Transport mehsana and another, AIR 1966 SC 1364 and also another judgment of a Constitutional Bench in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others, 1991 (supplement) SCC 600 to hold that the principles of natural justice by public authority like the appellant cannot be excluded and must be followed so as to be consistent with the Article 14 of the Constitution. The view of the learned Single Judge is supported by another judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416. It is evident from para 95 wherein their Lordships have observed as under:- LPA No.1580 of 2010(O&M) “The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject matter of that Article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of nature justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of “State” in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.” (emphasis supplied) It is thus evident that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that principles of natural justice could not be excluded and if any attempt is made, it is done at the peril of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Narandas Barot (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge is distinguishable because in that case the absence from duty was included in the list of misconduct as per the Regulation of the Road Transport Corporation. According to the learned counsel, the lapse on the part of the employee- respondent in the present case is not covered by the sweep of expression ‘misconduct’ because any misconduct which is required to be subjected to an enquiry under Statute 33 has been given in the list which exclude the misdemeanor like absence from duty. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid lapse is covered by Statute 74. However, we are unable to agree with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant because in Jai Shankar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492, a Constitutional bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court has taken the view that in a case of removal from service on the allegation of overstayed leave, an enquiry is must despite the fact that 2 LPA No.1580 of 2010(O&M) service regulation provided that there would be automatically termination from the service once an employee overstayed leave. Therefore, absence from duty and overstayed leave is considered to be a misconduct and holding of an enquiry is a must. In view of the above, we are not inclined to admit the appeal as we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge 07.12.2010 sd 3