A single-judge bench of the High Court of Tripura, presided over by Justice T. Amarnath Goud, ruled that the petitioner’s unauthorized absence constituted sufficient grounds for termination from service. The court observed that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to present his case but failed to provide satisfactory evidence to counter the allegations.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, appointed as a deputy secretary in the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (TBSE), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking arrears, current salary, and interest starting from July 13, 2021. He contended that he was present during the periods from July 13, 2021, to July 31, 2021; December 16, 2021, to April 25, 2023; and from April 28, 2023, but was wrongly marked absent. The petitioner submitted a memorandum explaining his stance, but a disciplinary committee subsequently found him guilty of grave irregularities and recommended his removal, leading to his termination. He challenged the termination order, citing violations of Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
The petitioner argued that the termination conflicted with natural justice, as his explanation was ignored and no proper inquiry was conducted before the issuance of a show-cause notice. He also alleged that the termination violated Rule 10 of the TBSE Rules, 1982.
Respondent’s Contention
The respondent countered by asserting that the petitioner had been unauthorizedly absent during the specified periods and had been given sufficient opportunities to respond, including a personal hearing. They maintained that the disciplinary process was conducted in accordance with TBSE rules, and the termination order was procedurally valid.
Court’s Findings and Observations
The court examined whether the petitioner was present during the disputed periods and found no substantial evidence, such as affidavits, attendance records, or testimony from colleagues, to support his claim. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India (2012), the court reiterated that absence due to compelling circumstances beyond an employee’s control, such as illness, does not automatically qualify as misconduct. However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such compelling circumstances.
The court also referred to D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) and State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, which emphasize the need for procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. Additionally, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Om Prakash, the Supreme Court held that procedural deficiencies cannot override clear evidence of abandonment and misconduct.
The court found that the petitioner had been granted multiple opportunities, including personal hearings, to present his case. The disciplinary process adhered to Rule 10 of the TBSE Rules, and procedural fairness was maintained.
Conclusion
The court ruled that the petitioner’s unauthorized absence constituted a valid ground for termination, especially since he had been given sufficient opportunities to respond. The writ petition was dismissed, and the termination order was upheld.