Belated challenge to termination for unauthorized absence warrants no interference after superannuation.

The petitioner was appointed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) on 5 February 1984 and was serving as a Cable Puller at Govinda Colliery, Jamuna-Kotma Area.

Following registration of Crime No. 171/2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was taken into custody on 15 July 2013, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 12 August 2014; his criminal appeal was pending and bail was granted on 25 February 2016.

During his incarceration, SECL initiated departmental proceedings for prolonged unauthorised absence under Clauses 26.24 and 26.30 of its Standing Orders. The enquiry was completed and the petitioner’s services were terminated by order dated 16 April 2015.

The petitioner challenged the termination on the ground that the enquiry was conducted in his absence, without an effective opportunity of defence and in violation of natural justice.

SECL contended that the prescribed procedure had been followed, adequate opportunities had been given, and that the petition was barred by delay and laches, particularly as the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation.

Whether the termination order dated 16 April 2015 was vitiated because the departmental enquiry was conducted ex parte without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of defence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged absence, allegedly caused by his incarceration, could validly be treated as unauthorised absence under Clauses 26.24 and 26.30 of SECL’s Standing Orders.

Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the petitioner’s delay in approaching the Court and his having attained the age of superannuation.

The Court exercised its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, examining whether the departmental termination suffered from procedural illegality or violation of natural justice.

Clauses 26.24 and 26.30 of SECL’s Standing Orders governed the consequences of prolonged unauthorised absence.

The Court applied the general principle that disciplinary action may be sustained where the prescribed departmental procedure has been followed and the employee, despite notice and opportunity, fails to participate in the enquiry or submit a defence.

It also applied the discretionary principles of delay and laches and recognised that relief under Article 226 may be declined where the employee has already reached the age of superannuation and interference would no longer serve a practical purpose.

The Court found from the impugned order and record that the petitioner’s services had been terminated after a departmental enquiry for unauthorised absence.

Although the petitioner asserted that his absence resulted from incarceration and that the enquiry was conducted in his absence, the Court noted that he had remained absent and that, despite issuance of notice, no one informed the authorities of the reason for his absence at the relevant time.

The Court therefore declined to accept the belated explanation as a basis for disturbing the disciplinary action.

Further, because the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, the Court considered that no effective or appropriate interference was warranted at that stage, particularly in the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction.

The challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice and the petitioner’s incarceration was rejected in view of the record showing unauthorised absence, failure to communicate the reason for absence despite notice, the completed departmental enquiry, delay in approaching the Court, and the petitioner’s attainment of superannuation.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, with no relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages, bonus, arrears or promotion-related benefits granted.