Natural justice and service regulations require a charge-sheet and fair hearing before punitive termination for alleged misconduct.

Termination of a permanent employee for alleged long absence and failure to report for duty was held invalid where the service regulations treated such conduct as misconduct but required a charge, statement of allegations and a reasonable opportunity to answer before punitive action. The employer relied on misconduct, yet no charge-sheet was framed, no enquiry was held and no prior opportunity to show cause was given. The court held that absence of prior notice or pay in lieu did not authorise automatic removal when the action was punitive in substance. The employee was therefore entitled to a fair opportunity to meet the allegations before dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of a permanent employee for alleged long absence and failure to report for duty was valid when no charge-sheet or enquiry was held and no reasonable opportunity to show cause was given under the governing service regulations and the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The service regulations treated irregular attendance, absence without leave, and failure to report for duty as misconduct. Clause 4(b) required that before action for misconduct was taken, the employee be furnished with the charge or charges and the statement of allegations and be given a reasonable opportunity to answer them. The termination order was founded on misconduct, yet no charge was framed and no enquiry was conducted. The absence of prior notice or pay in lieu did not authorise automatic removal where punitive action was in substance being taken. A person facing discharge for misconduct must be enabled to deny the allegations and meet them before punishment is imposed.

Conclusion: The termination was invalid for breach of clause 4(b) and the principles of natural justice, and the employee was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to show cause before any punitive action.

---