When Two Procedures Exist Under Standing Orders, Management May Select Either Unless Mala Fide Proven: Allahabad HC

Background

Rajendra Prasad Tripathi was a typist at HAL. His services were confirmed in 1983. In 1990, he fell ill and claimed to have sent several letters to HAL, informing them about his illness and requesting leave. However, as per HAL's records, Tripathi remained absent from 1990 without providing any information to the department. Thus, based on this, the company recommended immediate termination.

HAL then initiated an array of communications to Tripathi. A telegram, show cause notice, and other communications were sent warning him of unauthorised absence and potential termination. As per his own acknowledgement, Tripathi even received one of these communications. However, when he failed to respond, HAL sent another letter informing him that he had lost his lien due to unauthorized absence, as per Clause 19(ii) of the Standing Orders. Clause 19(ii) provides that if a workman remains absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 days, “he shall be deemed to have lost his lien on his appointment”. Consequently, a termination order was passed.

In 2001, after 10 years, Tripathi filed a writ petition challenging the termination order. He sought to be reinstated as a typist.

Arguments

Rajendra Tripathi argued that HAL had wrongly applied Clause 19(ii) of the Standing orders. He argued that the provision only applied to 'workmen', while he was a 'permanent workman'. He submitted that clause 26 and 27 should have been followed for major punishments, as it mandates detailed enquiry and due process. Relying on Jai Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan, he argued that disciplinary proceedings are mandatory.

On the other hand, HAL argued that the petition was barred by laches as it was filed after 10 years, with no explanation. They argued that HAL had followed all due procedure by issuing show cause notices and other communications; which, Rajendra Tripathi never responded to despite receiving them. Relying on Carnatic Company Limited vs. Venkatiah, they argued that management had the choice between two procedures and legitimately opted for Clause 19(ii).

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court examined whether Clause 19(ii) applied to Tripathi's case. The court noted that the clause is only applicable to 'workmen' generally, and that Tripathi qualified as a 'workman' as per Clause 3. The court found that Clause 19(ii) does not indicate that it applies only to any specific categories, and thus, was also applicable to Rajendra Tripathi.

Secondly, the court distinguished the cases cited by Tripathi. The court noted that in all those cases, there was stigmatic termination which mandated a disciplinary proceeding. However, in this case, the court noted that Tripathi was admittedly absent without authorization. Further, the court held that he was also provided an opportunity to respond through show cause notices under Clause 19(ii). Thus, the court ruled that none of the precedents cited by Tripathi were applicable.

Thirdly, the court cited National Engineering Industries Limited vs. Hanuman. The court held that when management has a choice between two available procedures, it may resort to either process as long as there is no mala fide. Thus, the court held that the management was within its rights to invoke Clause 19(ii). Further, the court noted that where parties agree to terms in Standing Orders, doctrines of common law or equity considerations are not relevant.

Fourthly, the court agreed that natural justice principles ought to be followed. However, the court held that no regular disciplinary enquiry is required. Since HAL had complied by giving show cause notices, the court ruled that natural justice requirements were fulfilled.

Finally, the court noted that the petition was filed after 10 years, making it highly belated. With these observations, the court dismissed the petition.

Decided on: May 23, 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:30708

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sampurnanand Shukla, Abhinav Nath Tripathi, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Anurag Tyagi, D.K. Srivastava, S.K. Tripathi, Subodh Kumar Verma, Vishal Singh

Counsel for the Respondent: P.K. Sinha