Facts of the Case
A was an employee governed by service rules framed by the competent authority. One of the relevant service rules provided that if an employee remained absent from duty continuously for a specified period, his service would stand automatically terminated. A remained absent from duty for more than two years without prior permission or sanctioned leave. Acting under the said rule, the employer terminated A’s service without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the termination, A challenges the action on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard.
Issues in the Case
- Whether automatic termination of service for long absence without hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether a statutory or service rule can exclude the requirement of opportunity of hearing.
- Whether termination for unauthorized absence affects the employee’s civil rights and livelihood.
- Whether the action of termination is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
The principles of natural justice, especially audi alteram partem, apply to all administrative actions affecting civil consequences unless expressly excluded. Termination of service undoubtedly affects an employee’s right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993), the Supreme Court held that even where standing orders or service rules provide for automatic termination due to absence, principles of natural justice must be read into such rules. The Court ruled that termination without giving the employee an opportunity to explain the absence is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Similarly, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it was held that any procedure affecting life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. Mere long absence cannot justify termination without enquiry, as absence may be due to illness or unavoidable circumstances.
Thus, rules providing for automatic termination cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that the termination of A’s service without giving an opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution. Even though A remained absent for more than two years, the employer was duty-bound to issue a notice and conduct a fair enquiry. The termination order would be quashed, and the matter may be remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration after providing A a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the automatic termination rule cannot be enforced mechanically.
About lawgnan
Administrative Law problem questions on natural justice, automatic termination, and service rules are frequently asked in LLB and judiciary exams. Knowing how courts balance statutory rules with constitutional safeguards is essential for scoring high marks. For more exam-ready Administrative Law answers, landmark case summaries, writ jurisdiction problems, and simplified legal explanations, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is specially designed for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to strengthen your legal reasoning and answer-writing skills with confidence.
