ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. versus MANSOOR ALI KHAN ETC.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 28-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
v. 
MANSOOR ALI KHAN ETC. 
AUGUST 28, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Administrative Law-Natural Justice-Termination order passed with-
out notice to employee under Rule 5(8)(i) of Aligarh University Revised leave 
Rules, 1969-E.ffect of-Held, on facts, since no prejudice had been caused 
C 
to employee, termination order though made in violation of natural justice, 
was not required to be quashed-Service Law. 
Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ Petitioner terminated from serv-
ice for overstaying leave and accepting further contract of employment in 
foreign country despite forewarning that leave would not be extended-Held, 
D 
conduct of petitioner sufficient to deny relief under Article 226-Practice and 
Procedure. 
E 
MAK, working as a laboratory assistant in the appellant University 
applied for two years extra-ordinary leave for joining a University in 
Libya. The leave was sanctioned for two years, before the expiry of which 
MAK applied for a three-year extension of leave. This time while extend-
ing leave by one year, the appellant stated in its letter that no further 
extension would be possible and that MAK should resume duties positively 
by April 18, 1982. However, without waiting for the receipt of the exten-
sion letter, MAK entered into a fresh contract in Libya for a minimum 
F 
period of two years upto April 17, 1983. MAK wrote to the appellant on 
January 18, 1982 for grant of extension of leave till April 17, 1983. The 
Appellant sent MAK a telegram stating that his request was refused and 
that if he failed to resume duties by May 15, 1982 he would be deemed to 
have vacated the post and ceased to be in the appellant's service. 
G 
With MAK failing to resume duties even in the extended joining 
time, he was deemed to have vacated office with effect from April 18, 1982. 
After his appeal to the Visitor was rejected, MAK filed a writ petition in 
the High Court. A Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that 
the conduct of MAK in entering into a fresh contract without waiting for 
H 
the extension and in not availing of the extended joining time disentitled 
684 
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY v. M.A. KHAN 
685 
him to relief under Article 226. 
The Division Bench, while allowing MAK's appeal, held that on a 
harmonious reading of rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh University Revised 
Leave Rules, 1969 ('1969 Rules') and Rule IO(C)(ii) of the Aligarh Univer-
sity Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 
1972 ('1972 Rules'), MAK ought to have been given notice. The order of 
termination of services for alleged unauthoris~d absence was quashed and 
the Vice Chancellor of the appellant was directed to consider the matter 
afresh. 
A 
B 
Although the facts in the second case of MAK were similar, notice 
C 
had been issued and reply furnished before the order of deeming vacation 
of office was passed. However, the Division Bench of the High Court did 
not take note of this difference and allowed MAK's appeal following the 
judgment in MAK's case. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
Held : 1.1. No prejudice had been caused to the officer for want of 
notice under Rule 5(8)(i). Since on these facts, only one conclusion was 
possible, MAK's case fell within the exceptions spelt out in S.L. Kapoor~· 
case and it was not necessary to quash the order which was passed in 
violation· of natural justice. [692-E; 697-C] 
S.L Kapoor v. Jagmohan, [1980] 4 SCC 379, relied on. 
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1999] 6 SCC 237; Gadde Venkateswara 
Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1966] 2 SCR 172; Ridge v. Baldwin, 
(1964) AC 40; K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, [1984] 1 SCC 43; State 
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, [1996] 3 SCC 364 and Rajendra Singh v. 
Stale of M.P., [1996] 5 SCC 460, referred to. 
1.2. Even if MAK had been given notice and he had mentioned the 
D 
E 
F 
fact of job continuance in Libya as a reason, that would not have made any 
G 
difference and would not have been treated as a satisfactory explanation 
under Rule 5(8)(i). [697-B] 
2.1. MAK had unilaterally accepted a further contract in Libya in 
the teeth of the advance warning given. That conduct was sufficient to 
deny him relief under Article 226. [ 695-C] 
H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4780 of 2000. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.99 of the Allahaba

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.