Supreme Court Overturns High Court Ruling: University Employee's Termination Upheld

The Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in N.K. Taneja, Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut & Anr. vs. Maharaj Singh, addressed the legal complexities of employment termination in public institutions. The case revolved around whether the termination of a university professor who remained absent for an extended period without approval was legally justified.

Background of the Case

The dispute emerged when Maharaj Singh, a Reader in the Psychology Department at Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, sought an extension of his Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) without approval. Despite repeated notices from the university, he failed to return to duty. Eventually, his services were terminated by the university’s Executive Council.

The timeline of events:

November 14, 1990: Maharaj Singh joined as a Reader in the Psychology Department.
August 25, 2001: He applied for EOL.
November 25, 2001: He sought an extension of EOL, which was granted until May 31, 2002.
August 1, 2003: He applied again for EOL until December 26, 2003, but no orders were passed.
August 22, 2005: A show-cause notice was issued due to prolonged absence.
September 22, 2005: The university stated that no further leave could be granted.
February 9, 2006: Singh sought an extension of leave until August 24, 2006, while also seeking a promotion.
July 4, 2007: The Executive Council passed a resolution terminating his services.
August 17, 2009: While in the United States, Singh challenged his termination before the Chancellor of the university (Governor of Uttar Pradesh), but his representation was dismissed.
2010: He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
September 22, 2017: The High Court ruled in his favor, stating that the university had not conducted a proper inquiry.
February 12, 2025: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the university’s termination order.

Petitioner’s Arguments (University)

The university contended:

Singh had abandoned his job by continuously remaining absent for years.
Repeated notices were served, but he failed to report to duty or provide valid reasons for absence.
His EOL extensions were not automatic, and he could not assume indefinite leave without explicit approval.
The Executive Council had followed due process before terminating his employment.

The petitioner’s counsel argued:

“No employee has an absolute right to remain absent without approval. The university took all necessary steps to provide him an opportunity to return.”

Respondent’s Arguments (Maharaj Singh)

Singh’s defense was based on procedural lapses:

The university failed to conduct an inquiry before terminating him.
Since he was abroad, he could not respond to show-cause notices in time.
His request for EOL was pending, and the university should have either approved or formally rejected it before taking action.
The High Court rightly found that the termination was contrary to the service rules.

The respondent’s counsel argued:

“The university failed to follow the legal requirement of conducting an inquiry before terminating a permanent employee.”

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court critically analyzed the legal provisions concerning employment termination due to prolonged absence.

The key observations included:

There was no evidence that Singh made any serious effort to rejoin duty.
Merely applying for leave does not entitle an employee to indefinite absence.
The Executive Council had the authority to terminate him after repeated non-compliance.
The High Court should have directed a fresh inquiry rather than reinstating him outright.
As he was in the United States during the dispute, he had clearly abandoned his job.

The Court ruled:

“When an employee fails to report for duty despite repeated notices and does not even contest his case personally, the employer has the right to terminate his services.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s ruling.
Upheld the university’s decision to terminate Singh’s employment.
Directed that any provident fund already paid to Singh should not be recovered.
Ordered that all pending contempt proceedings against the university be treated as closed.

The Court concluded:

“The respondent clearly abandoned his services. The university followed due process, and there was no legal basis to reinstate him.”

Conclusion

This ruling sets an important precedent regarding employment termination:

Employees cannot assume indefinite leave without explicit approval.
Universities and public institutions have the right to terminate absentee employees.
Courts must ensure that reinstatement is ordered only when procedural violations are substantial.
Merely claiming a pending leave request does not protect an employee from termination.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that public institutions can enforce discipline and prevent misuse of employment benefits.

Petitioner Name: N.K. Taneja, Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut & Anr..
Respondent Name: Maharaj Singh.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Place Of Incident: Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 12-02-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: n.k.-taneja,-vice-ch-vs-maharaj-singh-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-02-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kumar
See all petitions in Judgment by K.V. Viswanathan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category