Supreme Court emphasizes natural justice in employment termination, invalidates decision, orders arrears payment to legal representatives.

The Supreme Court found the termination of the lecturer's services by the University invalid due to the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in employment matters. Despite the initial appointment being deemed illegal, the Court stressed the necessity of providing a fair and reasonable chance for the employee to present their case before termination. As the lecturer had passed away during the proceedings, the University was directed to pay arrears of salary to his legal representatives, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the termination notification.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves the regularisation of services of the appellant, termination of his services by the University, and the violation of principles of natural justice in the termination process.

Regularisation of Services:
The appellant, a lecturer, sought regularisation of his services from the University authorities, as he had been working in an affiliated college before it became a constituent unit of the University. The Syndicate and Sub-Committee examined his case and recommended his re-appointment, leading to his temporary re-appointment at Godda College.

Termination of Services:
The Vice Chancellor decided to terminate the appellant's services, citing irregularities in his appointment process. The appellant challenged this action, arguing that the termination was contrary to the principles of natural justice as he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the decision was made.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The High Court upheld the termination, deeming the initial appointment illegal, but did not address the lack of adherence to the rule of Audi Alteram Partem. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of natural justice in employment matters, stating that any action against an employee must be fair, just, and reasonable, and that termination without affording a hearing is not valid.

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 35(3) of the Bihar University Act, which allows termination of appointments made contrary to regulations without notice. However, it was highlighted that for such termination to be valid, a finding must be made that the appointment was irregular, necessitating an inquiry and giving the employee an opportunity to be heard.

The Court concluded that the termination of the appellant's services was invalid due to the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard. As the appellant had passed away during the proceedings, the Court directed the University to pay arrears of salary to his legal representatives. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition quashing the termination notification was allowed.

---