Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan
Supreme Court of India, 28 August 2000, 2 judges
Absence of the notice required by Rule 5(8)(i) before deeming vacation of post did not vitiate the order, because on admitted facts only one conclusion was possible and no prejudice was caused; the University's appeals were allowed.
Facts
Mansoor Ali Khan, a Laboratory Assistant at Aligarh Muslim University, took two years' extraordinary leave from 18.4.79 to work in Libya. He sought a three-year extension; the University extended leave by one year to 18.4.82 and warned that no further extension would be possible. He had already entered into a fresh contract in Libya. Further extension was refused and joining time was extended to 30.6.82, failing which he would be deemed to have vacated the post. He did not join, and the University treated him as having vacated office from 18.4.82 without issuing a show cause notice. A Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, but a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed his appeal. It also allowed the appeal of Murshad Hussain Khan, who had been given notice, by following Mansoor Ali Khan's case.
Questions before the Court
- When do Rule 5(8)(i) and (ii) of the Aligarh University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 and Rule 10(c)(i) and (ii) of the 1972 Non-Teaching Employees Rules apply?
- Whether there was a breach of natural justice in either case under Rule 5(8)(i).
- Whether Mansoor Ali Khan was entitled to relief when, on admitted facts, notice would have made no difference and no prejudice was caused.
What the Court held
- Rule 10(c)(ii) of the 1972 Rules applies only where absence, together with leave granted, exceeds five years. Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules applies to shorter absences and requires an explanation to be called for before the employee is deemed to have vacated the post.
- In Murshad Hussain Khan's case notice was issued and his reply considered, so the order complied with Rule 5(8)(i). The High Court had mechanically followed Mansoor Ali Khan's case.
- In Mansoor Ali Khan's case no notice was given, which was a breach of natural justice. But an order made in breach of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 where no prejudice is caused.
- Since he had been told in advance that extension for his Libyan job would be refused, and he offered no other reason, only one view was possible on admitted facts. His case fell within the exception in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan; no prejudice was caused.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the principle that breach of natural justice need not lead to quashing where admitted or indisputable facts allow only one conclusion, drawing on S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, K.L. Tripathi and M.C. Mehta (1999). It cautions that this exception must be applied with great care, so that the Court's decision is not a pre-conceived view substituted for that of the authority.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Coming back to the first case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan, admittedly, no notice under Rule 5(8)(i) of the 1969 Rules has been given. There is, therefore, violation of principles of natural justice as notice contemplated in Rule 5(8)(i) has not been given.”
“It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.C. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts - only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued.”
“We may add a word of caution. Care must be taken, wherever the Court is justifying a denial of natural justice, that its decision is not described as a 'pre-conceived view' or one in substitution of the view of the authority who would have considered the explanation.”
“Thus, in our view, in the above peculiar circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that even if Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan had been given notice and he had mentioned this fact of job continuance in Libya as a reason, that would not have made any difference and would not have been treated as a satisfactory explanation under Rule 5(8)(i). Thus, on the admitted or undisputed facts, only one view was possible. The case would fall within the exception noted in S.L.Kapoor's case. We, therefore, hold that no prejudice has been caused to the officer for want of notice under Rule 5(8)(i).”
Provisions interpreted
- Rule 5(8), Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules, 1969
- Rule 10(c), Aligarh University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972
- Article 226, Constitution
Related judgments
- Follows S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)“The case would fall within the exception noted in S.L.Kapoor's case.” (page 10)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan
- Case
- Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12700 of 1999 (with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12981 of 1999)
- Decided
- 28 August 2000
- Bench
- M. Jagannadha Rao, Y.K. Sabharwal
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment delivered by M. Jagannadha Rao, J.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.