V.C. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY & ORS. versus SHRIKANT

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
V.C. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY & ORS. 
v. 
SHRIKANT 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 : Sections JO, 17and 18. 
Abandonment of service-Misconduct--Proceeding abroad on Leave 
without prior sanction/permission of the competent authority--University 
Lecturer applied for sanction of leave as he desired to assist his wife in 
joining her fellowship in the United Kingdom as also to attend an academic 
meeting in Germany--Recommendations were made and forwarded by the 
Director of the Institute being the Head of the Department and the Competent 
Authority--The purpose of the lecturer's visit had been shown as "Personal 
& Scientific "-The lecturer left for the United Kingdom without express 
sanction of leave and without the permission of the Vice Chancellor--The 
lecturer was asked to join his duties by the Registrar of the University by 
a notice for the alleged acts of misconduct-The lecturer sent a letter 
intimating the Registrar that since air reservation was not available he would 
report for duty by a certain date-The lecturer came back to India and 
submilled his joining report on that date, which was not accepted by the 
Registrar stating that he had abandoned his service--The Vice Chancellor 
F 
refused to recall his order-On challenge, the High Court granted a 
conditional stay order of the termination-The lecturer was allowed to join 
duty but was not permitted to claim his salary till the writ petition was 
decided-The High Court ultimately held that the order of termination was 
bad in law but denied the respondent his back wages--Correctness of-Held: 
The procedure laid down for imposition of major penalty had not been 
G followed in the instant case-The lecturer, thus, had not been proceeded 
against for commission of any misconduct-The University was not sure as 
to whether the lecturer has committed a misconduct or by leaving India 
without obtaining leave, he would be deemed to have abandoned his 
service- -The lee lurer's leave had been sanctioned by the Director being the 
H 
Head oflhe Department in lerms of the leave rules--Back wages to the exient 
536 
V.C. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY v. SHRIKANT 
537 
of 7 5% granted to the lecturer. 
The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in the appellant-
University. The respondent applied for sanction of leave from 1.3.2000 
to 30.6.2000 as he desired to assist his wife in joining her fellowship in 
A 
· the United Kingdom as also to attend an academic meeting in Germany. 
Recommendations were made and forwarded on 21.2.2000 by the 
B 
Director of the Institute being the Head of the Department and the 
Competent Authority. The purpose of the respondent's visit had been 
shown as "Personal & Scientific". The respondent left for the United 
Kingdom without express sanction of leave and without the permission 
of the Vice Chancellor. The respondent was asked to join his duties by 
C 
the Registrar of the University by a notice dated 24.3.2000 for the 
alleged acts of misconduct. The respondent sent a letter intimating the 
Registrar that since air reservation was not available before 19.6.2000 
he would report for duty by 21.6.2000. The respondent came back to 
India and submitted his joining report on 21.6.2000, which was not 
accepted by the Registrar stating that he had abandoned his service 
from 1.3.2000. The Vice Chancellor refused to recall his order. 
On challenge, the High Court granted a conditional stay order of 
the termination and further directed that the respondent might be 
allowed to join his duties but he would not claim any salary till the writ 
petition was decided. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the 
ground that the respondent had an alternative remedy. 
The respondent made a representation before the Executive Council 
which adopted a resolution on 8.1.2003 although the same was confirmed 
later on. The High Court held that the order of termination was bad 
in law but denied the respondent his back wages. Hence the appeals. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether the Notification dated 25.3.1998 can be invoked against 
the respondent? 
Disposing the appeals, the Court 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: 1. Admittedly, the procedure laid down for imposition of 
major penalty had not been followed in the instant case. The respondent, 
H 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
thus, had not been proceeded against for commission of any

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