Supreme Court Remits Termination Dispute to University, Holds Employee Likely Abandoned Service but Protects Provident Fund

A Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal challenging an Allahabad High Court judgment that had set aside the termination of a university reader for prolonged absence and failure to join duty. The appeals arose out of Special Leave Petitions against the High Court order dated 22.09.2017.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court judgment and disposed of the matter while recording that respondent No.1 had been served but did not appear and was therefore set ex parte. The Bench noted that, although there may have been procedural lapse in terminating service, the facts showed that the employee "failed to report for duty" and was "travelling and moving around abroad", and that he had been paid his dues under the Contributory Provident Fund. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Assuming that there was a lapse on the part of the University in terminating the services of respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, on the ground that he had abandoned his services, we feel that the matter should have been remitted to the authorities of the University for passing appropriate fresh orders as per law; if necessary, after holding a disciplinary enquiry. The facts of the case are writ large and show that respondent no. 1, Maharaj Singh, failed to report for duty and was travelling and moving around abroad.” The Bench directed that the University shall not recover the CPF already paid to the respondent and stated that contempt proceedings pending in the High Court would be treated as closed.

Background: The dispute arose from the service of Maharaj Singh, who had served as a Reader in the Psychology Department of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut since 14.11.1990. He applied for extraordinary leave (EOL) on 25.08.2001 and sought extensions thereafter. While leave had been granted and extended up to 31.05.2002, a belated application on 01.08.2003 for extension up to 26.12.2003 remained undecided and no extension issued. The University issued a show-cause notice on 22.08.2005 and, by resolution of the Executive Council on 04.07.2007, terminated his services on the ground of non-joining and abandonment.

Respondent challenged termination by representation to the Chancellor (Governor of Uttar Pradesh), which was dismissed on 17.08.2009, and then filed Writ-A No.2450/2010 before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the writ in 2017 primarily on the basis that the University had not followed the applicable statute and had not conducted an inquiry, setting aside the Executive Council resolution and the Chancellor's order.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, respondent No.1 was served but did not appear and was set ex parte. The Court noted material facts showing prolonged absence and overseas travel, observed that he had not filed affidavits regarding foreign employment despite High Court directions, and recorded that CPF dues had been paid. While the Court acknowledged that, procedurally, the University might have erred in terminating service without appropriate inquiry, it ultimately set aside the High Court judgment and closed the matter in the terms recorded. The Court also directed that the University would not seek recovery of CPF amounts already disbursed and declared that contempt proceedings in the High Court (Contempt Application (Civil) No.512/2021) stood closed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 240 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.4978 of 2021; connected Diary No.7063/2021) Case Title: N.K. Taneja, Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut & Anr. v. Maharaj Singh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]