Deemed Abandonment Termination Set Aside for Unfair Procedure

Case Details: Radhey Shyam Mishra vs. University of Delhi - [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1186 (HC - Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Sanjeev Narula, J.
Imran Ali, Ms. Aanchal Bumb & M.Z. Khan, Advs for the Petitioner.
S.S. Ahluwalia, Ms Saniya Zehra, Advs & A.P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, a non-teaching employee of the respondent-college, was terminated by invoking deemed cessation/abandonment under Rule 49(2)(v) of the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971.
The petitioner challenged the termination. It was noted that the petitioner had contemporaneously asserted a serious mental illness, a fact acknowledged by the college when it sought medical particulars. Yet, the college proceeded to terminate him without considering that explanation.
Further, it was noted that the correspondence on record made it unsafe to infer that the petitioner intended to abandon service. The college’s reliance on past misconduct, indiscipline, and the petitioner’s service record gave the action a punitive character in substance, and fair procedure could not, therefore, be avoided by describing the result as a deemed termination.
The High Court observed that, although the Court had required a ‘reasoned decision on merits’ from the Governing Body, what was communicated to the petitioner and placed before the Court substantially comprised a reply issued through counsel for the college together with justification set out in the counter-affidavit and, therefore, the Court’s direction was not complied with in substance. The termination was, therefore, unsustainable.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, since the petitioner did not work after termination, it would be unjust to direct the college to pay full wages for the entire remaining period of service as if the petitioner had actually discharged duties.
Further, the High Court held that the college could not be permitted to retain the advantage of a legally unsustainable termination which deprived the petitioner of a fair determination of his explanation and, in consequence, of continuity and retiral benefits.

Therefore, the petitioner was to be treated as having continued in service, notionally, from the date of termination till the actual date on which he would have superannuated, in accordance with his service record, and, for the period from 23-8-2002 till the date of superannuation, he would be entitled to 25 per cent of back wages.

List of Cases Reviewed

Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India [2012] 2 taxmann.com 1199 (SC)/(2012) 3 SCC 178 (para 47)
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993 taxmann.com 1181 (SC) (para 48) followed
Meena v. T.R. Patil Vidyalaya 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1541 (para 50)
Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India [2023] 7 taxmann.com 2111 (SC)/(2023) 9 SCC 100 (para 51)
PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024] 161 taxmann.com 410/184 SCL 337 (SC)/(2024) 6 SCC 579,
DB Corp. Ltd. v. Registrar of Newspapers 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3026 (para 52) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993 taxmann.com 1181 (SC) (para 20),
L. Robert D’Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway 1982 taxmann.com 382 (SC) (para 20)
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India [2012] 2 taxmann.com 1199 (SC) (para 20),
L. Robert D’Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway (1982) 1 SCC 645 (para 20)
DB Corp. Ltd. v. Registrar of Newspapers 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3026 (para 33)
PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [2024] 161 taxmann.com 410/184 SCL 337 (SC) (para 33)
Meena v. T.R. Patil Vidyalaya 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1541 (para 33)
Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India [2023] 7 taxmann.com 2111 (SC) (para 33)
U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 (para 57).