Supreme Court Quashes Employee Termination: Key Lessons from Kerala Agricultural University v. T.P. Murali Case

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. v. T.P. Murali (2024 INSC 658), addressed significant legal issues concerning the procedural requirements for terminating an employee’s services after an extended period of Leave Without Allowance (LWA). The case involved the interpretation and application of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960, and the Kerala Service Rules, particularly in the context of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions.

Background and Facts

The respondent, T.P. Murali, joined Kerala Agricultural University as an Assistant Professor on 24th March 1988. After serving for approximately 11 years, Murali sought and was granted a long Leave Without Allowance (LWA) starting from 5th September 1999. This LWA was granted in four consecutive blocks of five years each, allowing Murali to take up employment at a Community College in Pennsylvania, USA. The total leave period extended for 20 years, ending on 4th September 2019.

Upon the expiry of this LWA period, Murali was expected to resume his duties at Kerala Agricultural University. However, he failed to do so, as he was still in the USA at the time and reportedly suffering from serious health issues. Murali claimed that his health condition, coupled with travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prevented him from returning to India immediately. He communicated his intention to rejoin duty via email, but did not physically return until July 2020, on the first Vande Bharat flight organized by the Indian government to repatriate citizens stranded abroad due to the pandemic.

Upon his return to India, instead of being allowed to resume his duties, Murali was served with a charge memo on 15th July 2020. The memo accused him of unauthorized absence from 5th September 2019, thereby violating the statutory conditions of his LWA. The university initiated a formal departmental inquiry, which concluded that Murali had indeed violated the terms of his leave by failing to rejoin his duties on time. Subsequently, the Vice Chancellor of Kerala Agricultural University, acting on the delegated authority of the Executive Council, terminated Murali's services retroactively from 5th September 2019.

Murali challenged this termination order by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his petition, upholding the termination on the grounds that Murali had violated the statutory rules by not resuming his duties immediately after the expiry of his LWA. The court found his explanations regarding his health issues and the COVID-19 travel restrictions unconvincing and inadequate to justify his prolonged absence.

Unfazed, Murali appealed against this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench overturned the Single Judge’s ruling, quashing the termination order on the grounds that the university had not adhered to the procedural requirements prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Division Bench, however, did not order Murali's reinstatement, as he had already reached the age of superannuation during the course of the litigation. Instead, the court directed Kerala Agricultural University to determine and disburse the pensionary benefits due to Murali under the relevant statutes and rules.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was asked to consider the following key issues:

1. Whether Kerala Agricultural University followed the correct procedural requirements for terminating Murali’s services under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

2. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in quashing the termination order based on the identified procedural lapses.

3. Whether Murali’s explanations for his delayed return to duty were adequately considered by the university and whether these reasons justified his absence.

Supreme Court's Analysis

1. Procedural Requirements Under the Kerala Civil Services Rules:

The Supreme Court began by scrutinizing the relevant service rules that governed the case, particularly Rule 24A of the Kerala Service Rules and Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Rule 24A specifies that if an officer who availed of LWA does not return to duty immediately upon the expiry of the leave, his services shall be terminated after following the procedure laid down in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

The Court highlighted that Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties, including termination. Before initiating a formal disciplinary inquiry, the rule mandates that the disciplinary authority must first record its prima facie satisfaction that there is a case for taking action against the employee. This involves issuing a show cause notice to the employee, and based on the employee's response, deciding whether to proceed with a formal inquiry.

The Supreme Court found that in Murali’s case, Kerala Agricultural University had failed to comply with these procedural requirements. Specifically, there was no evidence that the university had recorded the necessary prima facie satisfaction before initiating the disciplinary inquiry or appointing the Inquiry Committee. This omission was a significant procedural lapse, as the recording of such satisfaction is a mandatory prerequisite for proceeding with a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 15. The Court noted that procedural safeguards like these are crucial to ensuring fairness and transparency in disciplinary actions, particularly when they may lead to severe consequences such as termination.

2. Consideration of Murali’s Bona Fides:

The Supreme Court also examined the reasons Murali provided for his delayed return to duty, which included serious health issues and the unprecedented travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that Murali had communicated his intention to rejoin duty after the expiry of his LWA and had taken steps to return to India as soon as circumstances allowed. The Division Bench of the High Court had accepted these explanations as bona fide, supporting its decision to quash the termination order.

The Supreme Court concurred with the Division Bench’s assessment, recognizing that Murali’s inability to return on time was due to genuine and uncontrollable circumstances. The Court emphasized that disciplinary actions should take into account the context and reasons behind an employee's conduct, especially when external factors like a global pandemic are involved. In Murali’s case, his health condition and the COVID-19 restrictions were critical factors that justified his delayed return, and these should have been given due consideration by the university before proceeding with termination.

3. Adherence to Statutory Requirements:

Reaffirming a cardinal principle of administrative law, the Supreme Court stressed that when a statute prescribes a specific procedure for doing something, that procedure must be strictly followed. In this case, the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules explicitly required the recording of prima facie satisfaction before initiating a disciplinary inquiry. Kerala Agricultural University’s failure to adhere to this statutory requirement rendered the entire disciplinary process legally flawed.

The Court observed that procedural requirements are not mere formalities but essential safeguards designed to protect the rights of employees and ensure that disciplinary actions are carried out fairly and justly. By neglecting to record the necessary satisfaction, the university compromised the integrity of the disciplinary process, leading to an unlawful termination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming that the termination of T.P. Murali’s services was procedurally flawed and, therefore, not legally sustainable. The Court emphasized that the termination of an employee’s service must be conducted in strict compliance with the procedural safeguards provided in the relevant service rules. Since Kerala Agricultural University failed to adhere to these procedural requirements, the termination order could not be upheld.

The Court also acknowledged that Murali had already reached the age of superannuation, making reinstatement impractical. Consequently, the Court directed the university to determine and disburse the pensionary benefits to which Murali was entitled under the relevant statutes and rules.

In dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by Kerala Agricultural University, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions and the necessity of strict adherence to statutory procedures. The judgment serves as a reminder that legal compliance is critical in maintaining the validity of disciplinary actions and protecting the rights of employees.