Guest lecturer’s termination for alleged absence cannot stand without notice and supporting evidence.

The petitioner was assigned as a Guest Lecturer for 11 months by order dated 20 June 2024.

On 17 February 2025, his assignment was terminated under Clause 8.7 of the Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024, on the ground that he had remained absent for 15 consecutive days.

The State alleged that he was absent from 16 January to 1 February 2025, but produced no documentary evidence supporting that allegation.

The petitioner stated that the college had assigned him examination-invigilation duties on several dates during the relevant period, for which he received remuneration; the respondents did not controvert that assertion with evidence.

He also contended that he received no notice or opportunity to be heard before termination.

Whether the petitioner’s assignment could be terminated under Clause 8.7 for 15 days’ continuous unauthorized absence without notice or an opportunity to respond.

Whether the respondents established continuous unauthorized absence despite the petitioner’s assertion that the college had assigned him examination duties during the relevant period.

Clause 8.7 of the Guest Lecturer Policy, 2024, was invoked as the basis for termination on account of 15 days’ continuous absence.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, holding that the petitioner should have had an opportunity to explain the allegation before his assignment was terminated.

It also required the respondents to support the alleged unauthorized absence with documentary material and to consider the petitioner’s asserted examination duties before terminating the assignment.

The respondents had not produced documentary evidence establishing the alleged continuous absence, while the petitioner’s assertion that the college assigned him examination duties on specified dates and paid him remuneration remained uncontroverted.

The Court rejected the State’s attempt to disregard those duties merely because they were examination-related rather than teaching duties: the college itself had assigned them, and the respondents had not shown that the alleged absence was established by cogent material.

Because the petitioner had also received no opportunity to explain his position, the termination failed both for want of adequate evidentiary support and for non-compliance with natural justice.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent.