Absence from Duty Does Not Automatically Constitute Abandonment Without Considering Valid Explanations and Ensuring Procedural Fairness

The Petitioner, a Library Attendant at Mata Sundri College, was absent from duty starting 14th December 2001

His wife informed the College on 13th January 2002 that he was suffering from mental illness and requested medical leave

The College initially corresponded with the wife seeking medical particulars but later issued a notice on 29th May 2002 alleging misconduct and directing him to face "charges framed"

On 3rd July 2002, the College terminated his services by invoking a "deemed termination" clause for 90 days of unauthorized absence

After a lengthy procedural history, including a prior writ petition [W.P.(C) 19812/2004] where the Court directed the Governing Body to pass a "reasoned decision," the College rejected the Petitioner's representation without a speaking order

The Petitioner, having since reached the age of superannuation, sought continuity of service and retiral benefits

1. Whether the petition was barred by res judicata given the disposal of the earlier W.P.(C) 19812/2004

2. Whether an employee’s absence can be treated as automatic abandonment under Rule 49(2)(v) when "valid reasons" (mental illness) are asserted

3. Whether the termination was punitive in nature, necessitating a domestic inquiry and adherence to natural justice

Rule 49(2)(v) of the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971, which provides for deemed termination after 90 days of absence except for "valid reasons and/or unforeseen contingencies"

Principle from Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, which holds that unauthorized absence is not "wilful" if caused by compelling circumstances like illness

D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., establishing that automatic termination for absence without a minimum hearing violates natural justice

U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey regarding the discretionary and contextual nature of awarding back wages

The Court reasoned that Rule 49(2)(v) cannot operate mechanically; the opening proviso requires the employer to scrutinize whether "valid reasons" for absence exist

Since the Petitioner’s wife had asserted mental illness and the College had engaged in correspondence seeking details, the College could not claim the Petitioner "absconded" without first adjudicating the medical explanation

The Court further found that the College's notice dated 29th May 2002, which mentioned "charges framed," and the Governing Body's consideration of "past misconduct," proved the termination was punitive in substance rather than a neutral application of a deeming rule

Consequently, dispensing with a disciplinary inquiry was illegal. However, noting the Petitioner’s delay and the inadequacy of medical documentation, the Court determined that full back wages were not equitable

It held that the Petitioner is entitled to notional continuity of service until his superannuation for the purpose of pay fixation, pension, and gratuity

The period of initial absence (Dec 2001–Aug 2002) is to be treated as leave due or extraordinary leave without pay

The Petitioner was awarded 25% back wages from 23rd August 2002 (the date he sought to rejoin) until his superannuation, with a direction to release all benefits within twelve weeks. No actual reinstatement was granted as the Petitioner had already superannuated