Article 311 protection confined to civil posts; admitted unauthorised absence justified action without further hearing.

Employees of PGIMER do not, merely because the institution is a body controlled or funded by the State, hold civil posts under the Union or a State, so Article 311 protection and prior-hearing safeguards do not apply. On admitted facts of unauthorised absence after expiry of sanctioned foreign leave, repeated calls to rejoin and no real scope for prejudice meant that a further notice or hearing was unnecessary. The employer's action in treating the employee as having left the institute for continued absence was upheld, and the challenge based on natural justice failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an employee of PGIMER held a civil post so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the protection of prior hearing before adverse action. (ii) Whether, on the admitted facts of unauthorised absence after expiry of sanctioned foreign leave, refusal to permit rejoining could be invalidated for want of notice or hearing.

Issue (i): Whether an employee of PGIMER held a civil post so as to attract Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the protection of prior hearing before adverse action.

Analysis: Article 311 applies only to persons holding civil posts under the Union or a State. PGIMER is a separate body corporate created under the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966. Its employees do not, merely because the institution is controlled or funded in some manner by the State, become holders of civil posts under the State. The requisite master-servant relationship with the State was absent, and the constitutional protection invoked by the High Court was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: The respondent did not hold a civil post and was not entitled to claim protection under Article 311.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the admitted facts of unauthorised absence after expiry of sanctioned foreign leave, refusal to permit rejoining could be invalidated for want of notice or hearing.

Analysis: The respondent had taken ex-India leave on express conditions, was repeatedly called upon to rejoin, and did not do so within the permitted period. In such a situation, where the material facts were admitted and only one view was possible, insistence on a further notice or hearing would have served no useful purpose. The earlier precedents relied upon by the High Court arose in the context of Article 311 and did not govern the present case. The employer's action in treating the respondent as having left the institute and in proceeding against her for unauthorised absence was therefore sustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge based on natural justice failed, and the employer's action could not be struck down on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside, the stay against disciplinary proceedings was vacated, and the disciplinary process against the respondent was permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 311 protection is confined to holders of civil posts under the Union or a State, and where the facts are admitted and no real prejudice can result, the absence of a further notice does not invalidate the action taken.

---