- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These two appeals have been preferred by the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. In the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12700/99, the respondent is Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan, whose Special Appeal 483/95 was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad on 8-4-99, reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. 15674/87 dated 14-7-1995. In the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12981/99, the respondent is Mr. Murshad Hussain Khan, whose Special Appeal No. 484/95 was allowed on 8-4-99 by the Division Bench, following the judgment in Special Appeal No. 483/95 in the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan. The Service Rules relied upon in these two cases are common but there is some distinction on facts between the two cases and we shall refer to those facts separately. The result of the judgment of the Division Bench was that the impugned orders of termination of services for alleged unauthorised absence were quashed. They were set aside and the Vice-Chancellor of the University was directed to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the provision of Rule 10(C)(ii) of the Aligarh University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter called the 1972 Rules) and Rule 5(8)(i) of the Aligarh University Revised Leave Rules, 1969 relied upon by the University (hereinafter recalled the 1969 Rules).
(3.) We shall first state the facts in Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan's case. He was working as a Laboratory Assistant and he applied for two years' extraordinary leave for joining Al-Fatah University, Tripoli, Libya. The Vice-Chancellor sanctioned leave for two years from 18-4-79. Before the expiry of the period, Mr. Khan applied on 18-4-81 for extension of leave by 3 years. On 12/23-9-81, the University granted extension only for one year from 18-4-81. The leave stood thus extended up to 18-4-82. It was, however, clearly stated by the University, in its letter as follows : "...........You are required to resume duties by 18-4-1982. Please note that no further extension in the period of your leave will be possible and you are advised to make preparation for resuming duty positively by 18-4-82." But, without waiting for the receipt of the above order dated 12/23-9-81, Mr. Khan entered into a fresh contract in Libya which, according to him, was to be for a minimum period of 2 years. The fresh contract was up to 17-4-83. Thereafter, he wrote a further letter to the University on 18-1-82 for grant of extension of leave for 1 more year upto 17-4-83 and stated that he would definitely join duty on 18-4-83. The University sent a telegram on 21-4-82 stating that his request for further extension was refused and that he should resume duties by 15th May, 1982, failing which "he would be deemed to have vacated" the post and "ceased" to be in University service. On 1-6-82, the University sent a cable extending the joining time up to 30-6-82 and stated that he must join on 1-7-82 failing which he would be deemed to have "vacated" the post and cease to be in University service from 18-4-82. Subsequently, by letter dated 7/9-6-1982, the substance of the telegram was confirmed. Mr. Khan failed to join by 1-7-82. Result was that the University deemed that he had vacated office w.e.f. 18-4-82. The appeal to the Visitor was rejected on 5-9-85. Then Mr. Khan filed the Writ Petition on 24-8-87 for quashing the two telegrams and the order dated 5-9-85 of the Visitor.;