JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri Bhim Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Shukla appears for Dr. Archana Dubey-respondent No. 4. Shri Anurag Khanna appears for Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut. Shri Neeraj Tripathi has accepted notice on behalf of the Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut (in short, the University), and learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. 2. The Committee of Management, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, District Bulandshahr-petitioner No. 1, and its Secretary Shri Rashid Husain Khan as petitioner No. 2, have prayed for setting aside the order of the Chancellor of the University dated 31.10.2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, and also the order of the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 25.5.2004 by which the representation of Dr. Archana Dubey for joining as Lecturer in Zoology in the College was allowed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 31.3.2005 in Writ Petition No. 13770 of 2000 between Dr. Archana Dubey v. Vice Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut and others. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Smt. Archana Dubey was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology in the college vide appointment letter dated 15.8.1973. She joined and was teaching in the college. In the year 1977, she was allowed leave from 15.10.1977 to 14.10.1980 under the ‘Teachers’ Fellowship Scheme’ sponsored by the University Grants Commission with pay. She completed her Ph.D. from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. She was required and fill up a bond to continue in the college, for atleast five years. She was thereafter granted maternity leave from 16.7.1982 to 15.10.1982. This leave was also sanctioned with pay. 4. It is alleged that Dr. Archana Dubey belongs to Varanasi and wanted to continue at Varanasi. From 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987 she was on leave from the institution and joined Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi as Lecturer in Zoology on adhoc basis. A no objection certificate dated 11.10.1984 was issued by the Principal of the N.R.E.C. College Khurja and that the Principal again issued a certificate on 24.10.1989, to her that she was on extraordinary leave without pay from the college from 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987. 5. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner in Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi came to an end on 28.8.1987. 5. The ad hoc appointment of the petitioner in Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi came to an end on 28.8.1987. She wanted to join at N.R.E.C. College Khurja on next day on 29.8.1987 and requested that her remaining sanctioned leave be cancelled. It is alleged that Smt. Archana Dubey left the institution on 1.1.1993 and sent an application for leave from Varanasi from 1.1.1993 to 22.3.1993, on medical ground. It was stated by her that she was suffering from ‘Renal Tuberculosis’ (infection). She joined back on 23.3.1993 and was paid her dues, although she did not perform teaching work during this period. In September 1993 she again absented from 3.9.1993 and sent leave application on medical grounds for leave for one month and that on 4.10.1993 she requested for extension of leave for another three months. 6. The Principal of the College by his letter dated 26.11.1993 requested her to join as early as possible as the classes have begun and that remaining classes was also to begin in December 1993. She however requested for three months further leave and that after the examinations, when the summer vacation was to begin, she reported for joining on 29.4.1994 with an application dated 28.4.1994 showing the cause of her absence as illness suffering from ‘Renal Tuberculosis’. On 30.6.1994 when the teaching work was about to begin, she again sent an application for three month’s leave from 27.9.1994 supported with medical certificate dated 6.6.1994. This time illness was described as ‘Amaebic Lever Absfese’, with high fever. She sent another application on 27.9.1994 for leave upto 31.12.1994. 7. The Secretary of the College stated that she did not produce the fitness certificate when she wanted to join and that she again left the college with request for extension of leave. It is stated by him that thereafter she absented sine die and did not turn up. On 22.11.1994 the Principal informed her that the Committee of Management has taken a decision that if she does not join on 1.12.1994, it would be deemed that she had abandoned her job and that her services will be terminated. Despite the notice she kept on sending leave applications and that on 12.1.1995 she requested to Principal to extend her leave till 28.2.1995. Again she requested on 3.4.1995 to extend her leave by 28.5.1995. Despite the notice she kept on sending leave applications and that on 12.1.1995 she requested to Principal to extend her leave till 28.2.1995. Again she requested on 3.4.1995 to extend her leave by 28.5.1995. She thereafter came to join in April 1996, when summer vacation was going to start. The Committee of Management then took a decision on 29.7.1996 to terminate her services and that in the meeting dated 13.10.1996 a resolution was passed to take approval of her termination order from the Vice Chancellor of the University. 8. At this stage that Dr. Archana Dubey filed a Writ Petition No. 13770 of 2000. The Court after hearing counsel for the University and the College found that the Vice Chancellor has not approved the decision to terminate the services of the petitioner and that this should be done before any order for her joining is passed. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.3.2005 directing the parties to appear before the Vice Chancellor on 10.5.2004 and present their case and that the Vice Chancellor was required to take a decision at an early date preferably within three months. 9. By an order dated 25.5.2004, the Vice Chancellor, after narrating the facts presented before him by the parties, held that Dr. Archana Dubey should be allowed to join the College with immediate effect and that special leave should be sanctioned to her from 28.3.1996 till the date of her joining. The Vice Chancellor observed in his order that a teacher is entitled to leave without pay for a maximum period of five years and that a Committee of Management took a decision to terminate her services before she had completed five years of leave without pay and did not permit her to join. 10. Aggrieved the Committee of Management filed the Writ Petition No. 34813 of 2004 which was dismissed on 26.8.2004 on the ground that the College has an alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. On the representation of the College, the Chancellor after discussing the facts found that the leave without pay from 1.1.1993 for a period of two years was sanctioned by the College, and that if she was allowed to join in March 1996, five years period of leave without pay would not have expired. On the representation of the College, the Chancellor after discussing the facts found that the leave without pay from 1.1.1993 for a period of two years was sanctioned by the College, and that if she was allowed to join in March 1996, five years period of leave without pay would not have expired. The Vice Chancellor also found that the University had given various directions to the College including direction dated 23.8.1999 to allow her to join but that the College did not permit Dr. Archana Dubey to join in the institution. The Chancellor also found that the enquiry was held ex-parte and that she was not given any opportunity of hearing before terminating her services. 11. There was no stay of the orders by the High Court in this writ petition. 12. Shri Bhim Singh learned counsel for the College states that Dr. Archana Dubey was on leave without pay from 3.9.1993 to 22.4.1996 continuously and that if the periods of the previous leave taken by her, without pay, are added, the entire period spent by her on leave without pay would come to five years three months and ten days upto 22.4.1996. The Statute 16.20 and 16.18 of the First Statute of the University and the Code of Conduct as per provisions of Statute 16.02, 16.27, 17.03 and 17.19 provide that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The sanctioning authority may refuse leave or even cancel the leave. The extraordinary leave would be without pay for such reason as the Managing Committee may deem fit for a period exceeding three years initially but may be extended for a period not exceeding two years under special circumstances except in the circumstances mentioned in Statute 16.10. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Appeal of the College before the Chancellor relevant for the case are quoted as below : “19. That the provisions 16.20 and 16.18 of the First Statutes of the University of Meerut are relevant which was being extracted below : 16.20 Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. If the exigency of the occasion demand, the sanctioning authority may refuse leave of any kind and may even cancel the leave already granted. 16.18 Extraordinary leave shall be without pay. If the exigency of the occasion demand, the sanctioning authority may refuse leave of any kind and may even cancel the leave already granted. 16.18 Extraordinary leave shall be without pay. It may be granted for such reasons as the Managing Committee may deem fit for a period exceeding three years initially but may be extended for a period not exceeding two years under special circumstances except in the circumstances mentioned in Statute 16.10. 16.21 Sick leave or long term leave on account of prolonged illness can be granted on production of a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner. In case of such leave exceeding 14 days Principal shall be competent to call for a second certificate of a Registered Medical Practitioner approved by him. 20. That the code of conduct for teacher as per the provisions of statutes 16.02, 16.27, 17.03 and 17.19 provides thus : WHEREAS a teacher, conscious of his responsibilities and the trust placed in him to mould the character of the youth and to advance knowledge, intellectual freedom and social progress, is expected to realise that he can fulfil the role of moral leadership more by example than by precept through a spirit of dedication, moral integrity and purity in thought, word and deed. NOW THEREFORE : in keeping with the dignity of his calling, this code of conduct is hereby laid down to be truly and faithfully observed : 1. Every teacher shall perform his academic duties with absolute integrity and devotion.” 13. It is contended by Shri Bhim Singh, appearing for the College, that Dr. Archana Dubey was not interested in serving at Khurja in the Dstrict of Bulandshahr. She was a permanent resident of Varanasi and always wanted to go back. After her appointment she pursued Ph.D degree under the ‘Teachers’ Fellowship Scheme’ and thereafter she served for a period of two years in Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi. She was continuously absent from 15.10.1977 to 22.4.1996 for one reason or other. She did not show any concern towards her responsibilities as a teacher and was not interested in teaching. The students of the Zoology Department suffered in their studies, on account of her irresponsible conduct. She was a bad influence on other teachers of the College. She was continuously absent from 15.10.1977 to 22.4.1996 for one reason or other. She did not show any concern towards her responsibilities as a teacher and was not interested in teaching. The students of the Zoology Department suffered in their studies, on account of her irresponsible conduct. She was a bad influence on other teachers of the College. A brief summary of her leave account from 15.10.1977 to 22.4.1996 would show that in 20 years she had come to Khurja for short periods only, to apply for leave and to go back again to Varanasi. She did not produce the fitness certificate whenever she wanted to join and continued to send applications with medical certificates. She would appear only when the College was about to close and then again applied for leave as soon as the College re-opened. She was repeatedly asked to be responsible and to take up teaching work but that she did not show any concern at all. 14. Shri Bhim Singh states that the College responded to all the directions issued by the University. On 7.9.1999 when the College was required to allow her to join after taking an undertaking, the Principal and thereafter Secretary of the College, gave a detailed reply narrating her conduct and to allow them to take decision to terminate her services. The Principal of the College in his letter dated 12.5.2004 to the Vice Chancellor of the University informed the University as follows : “To The Vice Chancellor C.C.S. University, Meerut Sub : Submission of papers pertaining to termination of the services of Dr. Archana Dubey, Lecturer in Zoology Department, in continuation of our earlier letter No. 064/99/Secy. dated 30.8.99 and No. 211/2001/Secy. dated 28.8.2001 and No. 2571/NREC/2.4.02 and 27.7.2002 all addressed to V.C., C.C.S. University. Sir, It is to bring to your kind information and necessary action that Dr. Archana Dubey, Lecturer in Zoology Department has availed all kinds of leave i.e. extraordinary leave, without pay for five years, maternity leave and leave under teachers fellowship scheme, no leave have been left to her credit. The detail of leaves availed by her is as under : (1) She joined as Lecturer in Zoology on 15.8.73. She was not interested in teaching and has availed all kinds of leaves and remained absent from duty deliberately. (2) 15.10.1977 to 14.10.1981 she remained on leave under Teacher’s Fellowship Scheme. The detail of leaves availed by her is as under : (1) She joined as Lecturer in Zoology on 15.8.73. She was not interested in teaching and has availed all kinds of leaves and remained absent from duty deliberately. (2) 15.10.1977 to 14.10.1981 she remained on leave under Teacher’s Fellowship Scheme. (3) 16.7.1982 to 15.10.1982 she remained on maternity leave. (4) 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987 she left without information to Management Committee and joined other institution at Varanasi. (5) 1.1.1993 to 22.3.1993 she left college without information seeking station leave permission and sent application for leave from Varanasi. (6) 4.10.1993 to 4.1.1994 she remained on medical leave. (7) On 8.12.1993 she again applied for extension of leave, she tried to join college on 28.4.1994 to avail summer vacations from 1.5.1994 to 30.5.1984. At the end of vacations she again applied for leave on 30.6.1994 upto 27.9.1994. (Annexure-51) (8) On 27.9.1994 to 30.11.1994 again sent application for leave and did not work. On requisition of medical fitness certificate she left college and again applied for leave on medical grounds. (9) She remained absent sine die from the college and was informed by the Principal on 22.11.1994 that Management Committee has decided to terminate her service if she does not join upto 1.12.1994. (10) That by making representations she is creating a background to draw benefits. Despite of repeated requests and reminder and persuasion, she did not join the college. Ignoring the interest of the students she put pressures on the Management of the College to draw huge salary and not teaching. (11) She always sent application for leave or extension of leave without carrying the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act and the Statutes of Ch. C.C. S. University. In her application for leave she always demanded medical leave and when once asked to furnish medical fitness, she did not comply and again applied for leave. (12) That in the interest of the college on 26.2.1995 the Management Committee authorised the Secretary for initiating proceeding for the termination of her services. A letter dated 30.8.1995 was written to the Registrar of the University for the approval of termination. (12) That in the interest of the college on 26.2.1995 the Management Committee authorised the Secretary for initiating proceeding for the termination of her services. A letter dated 30.8.1995 was written to the Registrar of the University for the approval of termination. It is submitted that she herself left Khurja and went to Varanasi and since 1993 she is sending application after application for leave even though no leave of any kind is due to her considering the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act and Chaudhary Charan Singh University statutes regarding Maximum period allowed for extraordinary leave without pay and medical leave, teachers competibility of teaching after the gap of more than ten years, notices and reminders to join the college and vide resolution of Management Committee dated 18.7.99 the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor is requested to approve the termination of her services. Encl.10 Yours faithfully Sd/- (R.K. Upadhyay) Principal.” 15. Shri Bhim Singh has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava, 2008 (1) ESC 167 (SC), in which relying upon Viveka Nand Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and others, (2005) 5 SCC 337 the Supreme Court held that mere sending of an application for grant of leave, much after the period of leave was over, as also the date of resuming duties cannot be said to be a bonafide act on the part of the workman. The Bank, in response to the lawyer’s notice, had categorically stated that the workman had been carrying on some business elsewhere. Only because on a later date an application for grant of medical leave was filed, the same ipso facto would put an embargo on the exercise of the jurisdiction of the bank from invoking clause 2 of the bipartite settlement. In such case the principle of natural justice were required to be complied with. The same would not mean that a full-fledged departmental proceeding was required to be initiated. A limited enquiry as to whether the employee concerned had sufficient explanation for not reporting to duties after the period of leave had expired or failure on his part on being asked so to do, amounts to sufficient compliance of the requirements of the principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the departmental authorities removing the respondent employee from service. 16. Shri S.S. Shukla appearing for Dr. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the departmental authorities removing the respondent employee from service. 16. Shri S.S. Shukla appearing for Dr. Archana Dubey submits that it is incorrect to state that the petitioner was not interested in teaching in the College at Khurja at Bulandshahr. She was appointed on 15.8.1973 and worked upto 1977. She was thereafter allowed leave to pursue higher studies and to serve at Varanasi on adhoc basis in accordance with the statutes of the University. She was seriously ill and could not join duty and continued to apply for leave. It is not correct to say that she appeared whenever the College was closing, and then would apply for leave again after re-opening of the college. She all along informed the college with her illness and submitted medical certificates. When she wanted to join with her fitness certificate on 28.8.1994, the Principal refused to accept the joining on the ground that the college was about to close for summer vacation. Due to long treatment of Renal Tuberculosis she was prescribed hard ante tubercular drugs, resulting into infection and thereafter secondary infection in her lever. The statement, that she was only interested in salary and pension without teaching work, is not correct. 17. Shri Shukla states that the resolution dated 13.10.1996 by the Committee of Management to terminate her services was not approved by the Vice Chancellor. The statement that she could not be allowed leave without pay beyond five years was found incorrect, and that in any case the leave beyond five years could not be a ground to ipso-facto terminate her services. The management was delaying the matter of her joining for more than ten years. The management has not been able to show that she had completed more than five years of service on leave without pay. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology in the N.R.E.C. College Khurja in 1973. The College granted her leave to pursue Ph.D programme from 15.10.1977 to 14.10.1980 under the ‘Teachers Fellowship Scheme’ of the University Grants Commission. She was on maternity leave from 16.7.1982 to 15.10.1982 sanctioned to her. The period of her absence from 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987, when she had taken adhoc appointment in Harish Chandra Post Graduate College Varanasi is also not in dispute, or a ground for which her services were sought terminated. She was on maternity leave from 16.7.1982 to 15.10.1982 sanctioned to her. The period of her absence from 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987, when she had taken adhoc appointment in Harish Chandra Post Graduate College Varanasi is also not in dispute, or a ground for which her services were sought terminated. The Principal of the college issued a letter to her on 24.10.1989 (Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit) certifying that she remained on extraordinary long leave without pay from 26.3.1985 to 28.8.1987 to serve Harish Chandra Post Graduate College, Varanasi. She is a conscientious teacher of considerable experience and bears good moral character. Her absence from 1.1.1993 to April 1996 when she was not allowed to join is the only period under dispute. It is alleged by her that she was seriously ill suffering from Renal Tuberculosis which also affected her liver and that the entire period of leave was supported by medical certificates. 18. The record shows that the petitioner served in the College from 22.3.1993 to 4.10.1993. She again requested for medical leave from 4.10.1993 to 4.1.1994 and once again on 4.4.1994, and then requested for joining on 28.4.1994 to avail summer vacation from 1.5.1994 to 30.5.1994. She again applied for leave from 30.6.1994 to 27.9.1996, and thereafter again requested for leave from 27.9.1994 to 30.10.1994 on medical ground and then remained absent even after reminders by the Principal of the College that the management has decided to terminate her services if she did not join upto 1.12.1994. The period of her absence thereafter upto April 1996 is under serious dispute. Whereas the College states that she did not join inspite of the repeated reminders, she pleaded to be absent on account of her illness. After which her request for joining was rejected by the Committee of Management in its meeting dated 29.7.1996, the Committee in the meeting on 13.10.1996 resolved to propose dismissal of her services. 19. The University in the counter affidavit of Shri S.C. Bharadwaj, Senior Assistant, Ch. Charan Singh University has referred to a letter written by Dr. Archana Dubey to join with fitness certificate on 28.4.1994 but that she was not allowed to join. She was again refused by the College to allow her to join on 26.3.1996. 19. The University in the counter affidavit of Shri S.C. Bharadwaj, Senior Assistant, Ch. Charan Singh University has referred to a letter written by Dr. Archana Dubey to join with fitness certificate on 28.4.1994 but that she was not allowed to join. She was again refused by the College to allow her to join on 26.3.1996. It is stated in paragraph 26 of the counter affidavit that the resolution dated 13.10.1996 was never sent for approval before the Vice Chancellor and that inspite of several directions contained in letters dated 23.5.1999; 7.8.1999; 11.10.1999 and 9.2.2000, the College did not allow Dr. Archana Dubey to join and continuously failed to comply with the directions of the University. 20. The petitioner has not denied the fact that Dr. Archana Dubey was actually ill. In the representation made before the Vice Chancellor, the Chancellor and in the writ petition there is no averment that the petitioner was not ill, or that the medical certificates did not truly reflect her medical condition. She was suffering from Renal Tuberculosis. The illness was also certified by Doctors at Khurja and that she was not in a position to join and teach in the College. Her requests for medical leave were not considered by the College. In fact the leave applications were not rejected by the College, instead the College refused to allow her to join and thereafter disobeyed the directions of the University to allow her to join and teach in the College. It is only when Dr. Archana Dubey filed the Writ Petition No. 13770 of 2000 that both the College took appropriate action in the matter and that the Vice Chancellor rejected the representation of the College. 21. We do not find substance in the contention of the petitioners, that the Statute 16.18 provides that termination of services, if the leave without pay is requested beyond five years. Though the period of Dr. Archana Dubey’s absence for more than five years on leave without pay is disputed, we do not find that Statute 16.18 or Statutes 16.02, 16.27, 17.03 and 17.19 provide that the request of leave without pay beyond five years will by itself result in termination of the service of the teacher of the University. Statute 16.21 provides that long term leave on account of prolonged illness can be granted on production of a medical certificate from registered medical practitioner. Statute 16.21 provides that long term leave on account of prolonged illness can be granted on production of a medical certificate from registered medical practitioner. In case of leave exceeding 14 days, the Principal shall be competent to call a second certificate of a registered medical practitioner approved by him. The procedure in case of any doubt of the illness was not followed by the College. There is nothing unusual for a person to request for leave if she fell seriously ill and requested for long leave. The bonafides of the applicant could be verified by production of a proper medical certificate. 22. There were no such unusual circumstances in the present case that the College assumed that Dr. Archana Dubey was not interested in discharging her duties as a teacher in the College. All her leave applications were sanctioned before 1.1.1993 and that thereafter she had applied for leave on medical grounds. The genuineness of her applications supported by medical certificate and her inability to join duties has not been doubted. The College did not reject her leave applications. The fact that the period when she reported for joining in 1994, was the period when the College remained closed by itself was not a ground to deny her permission to join and to consider her application for leave. 23. The College did not follow the principles of natural justice in giving a show cause notice to her and thereafter holding an enquiry in which she was entitled to sufficient opportunity to defend herself. Further we find that there is no averment or material on record to show that she had taken up any alternate employment or was gainfully employed during the period of her absence. The College assumed her absence to be for malafide intension and refused to believe that her absence could be due to genuine medical grounds. The clubbing of the period of her absence on sanctioned leave without pay with the period of her assumed unauthorised absence, and thus treating she was absent for a period of more than five years on leave without pay was illegal and arbitrary conclusion drawn by the College. The Statute providing that leave without pay should not exceed beyond five years is the outer limit for sanction of such leave. The Statute providing that leave without pay should not exceed beyond five years is the outer limit for sanction of such leave. It does not, on its own, become a ground for terminating her services and that too without any opportunity of hearing. The Vice Chancellor and the Chancellor did not commit any error in refusing to approve the resolution of the College to terminate her services. 24. There was no interim order granted in this writ petition and thus if the College has not complied with the orders, it has to blame itself for the arrears of salary which she is entitled to as a teacher of the college. 25. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-. ————