MAFATLAL NARAINDAS BAROT versus DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 40 · Decided: 13-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 onpor-
runity 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 th

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