Deemed voluntary retirement for prolonged unauthorised absence upheld where notice and opportunity to explain were provided.

Clause XVI of the IV Bipartite Settlement permitted deemed voluntary retirement after 90 or more consecutive days of unauthorised absence, if the employee was given notice to report for duty or furnish a satisfactory explanation within 30 days. The Supreme Court held that this mechanism was contractual, not punitive, and therefore did not necessarily require a departmental inquiry or attract a breach of natural justice. On the facts, there was no reliable material showing a satisfactory explanation, timely reporting, or a bona fide inability to resume duty. The termination was upheld, the writ challenge failed, and the High Court's order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether termination from service on the basis of prolonged unauthorised absence under clause XVI of the IV Bipartite Settlement could be effected without a departmental inquiry and whether such action violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Clause XVI provided that where an employee remained absent for 90 or more consecutive days beyond sanctioned leave, the management could issue notice at the last known address requiring the employee to report for duty or furnish a satisfactory explanation within 30 days. If the employee neither reported nor offered a satisfactory explanation showing an intention to resume duty, the employee would be deemed to have voluntarily retired. The provision was held to operate not as a punishment for misconduct but as a contractual mechanism to address prolonged unexplained absence. On the facts, no reliable material showed that the employee had given a satisfactory explanation, reported within the stipulated period, or proved that he had been prevented from joining duty.

Conclusion: The termination was valid and did not require a prior inquiry; the challenge based on violation of natural justice failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service settlement expressly provides for deemed voluntary retirement after prolonged unauthorised absence, preceded by notice and an opportunity to explain or report back, termination under that mechanism is not punitive and does not necessarily require a disciplinary inquiry unless the employee shows a satisfactory explanation or a bona fide attempt to resume duty.

---