Natural justice and overstayal of leave: advance warning and admitted facts can cure absence of a further show cause notice.

Rule 5(8)(i) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 governed employees who failed to return after leave expired, while Rule 5(8)(ii) applied to a different rejoining situation; Rule 10(c)(ii) operated only where sanctioned leave plus absence exceeded five years, so it did not apply to either employee. In the second employee's case, the show cause notice and reply satisfied the procedural requirement under Rule 5(8)(i). In the first employee's case, the absence of notice did not vitiate the action because advance warning had already been given, the employee remained absent after taking fresh foreign employment, and a further opportunity could not have changed the result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 5(8)(i) or Rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 applied to cases of overstayal of leave for a period of less than five years, and whether Rule 10(c)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 applied only where the absence together with sanctioned leave exceeded five years. (ii) Whether the show cause requirement under Rule 5(8)(i) was satisfied in the case of the second employee and whether the absence of notice violated natural justice in the first employee's case. (iii) Whether, in the first employee's case, the absence of notice caused prejudice or whether the admitted facts showed that a further opportunity would have made no difference.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 5(8)(i) or Rule 5(8)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 applied to cases of overstayal of leave for a period of less than five years, and whether Rule 10(c)(ii) of the Aligarh Muslim University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 applied only where the absence together with sanctioned leave exceeded five years.

Analysis: Rule 5(8)(i) governs an employee who fails to return after expiry of leave or absents himself without leave, and contemplates a call for explanation before deeming vacation of post. Rule 5(8)(ii) deals with a different situation, namely where the employee is permitted to rejoin duty and the consequences as to pay and leave account follow, with the possibility of disciplinary action for misconduct. Rule 10(c)(i) and (ii) operate in a distinct field and apply when the leave and subsequent absence together exceed five years, in which event deemed resignation follows unless exceptional circumstances are found. On the facts, the period of absence in both cases was under five years, so Rule 10(c)(ii) did not govern.

Conclusion: Rule 5(8)(i) alone applied to both cases, and Rule 10(c)(ii) was inapplicable.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause requirement under Rule 5(8)(i) was satisfied in the case of the second employee and whether the absence of notice violated natural justice in the first employee's case.

Analysis: In the second employee's case, notice was issued, the reply was considered, and the order deeming vacation of office followed; therefore the procedural requirement under Rule 5(8)(i) was complied with. In the first employee's case, no notice was issued, so the issue turned on whether the omission caused any real prejudice or whether the case fell within the exception where only one conclusion was possible on the admitted facts.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice in the second employee's case, while the first employee's case required examination on prejudice.

Issue (iii): Whether, in the first employee's case, the absence of notice caused prejudice or whether the admitted facts showed that a further opportunity would have made no difference.

Analysis: The employee had already been warned in advance that no further extension beyond the granted period would be available and that he must resume duty. He nonetheless entered into a fresh foreign contract and remained absent beyond the extended date. The only explanation later projected was continuation of employment abroad, which had already been foreclosed by the advance intimation. On those admitted and indisputable facts, any show cause notice would not have produced a different result, so the case fell within the exception to the general rule requiring notice.

Conclusion: No prejudice was caused by the absence of notice, and the first employee could not obtain relief on the ground of breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the University's action, upheld the termination-related consequences in both matters, and rejected the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the employee has been put on advance notice of the consequence of continued overstayal and the admitted facts admit of only one possible outcome, failure to issue a further show cause notice does not vitiate the order for want of natural justice.

---