The High Court of Manipur held that termination of an aided college employee’s service without first conducting an inquiry, giving an opportunity to be heard, and obtaining the Director of Education’s approval is arbitrary, violates principles of natural justice, and contravenes Rule 4(b) of the Conduct and Discipline Rules. The decision upholds established law and is binding on subordinate courts in Manipur, with significant implications for disciplinary processes in aided and government educational institutions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/104/2024 of Aldrin Nahakpam Vs State Of Manipur And 2 Others |
| CNR | MNHC010003182024 |
| Date of Registration | 07-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Manipur |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Manipur |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the requirement of inquiry, hearing, and statutory approval for termination under Disciplinary Rules for Aided Colleges |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Educational Service Discipline |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that termination of a college lecturer’s service without holding any inquiry or affording a reasonable opportunity to show cause, and without prior approval from the Director of Education, violates both the principles of natural justice and the statutory disciplinary rules applicable to aided colleges. The impugned termination and subsequent rejection orders, issued without adherence to these requirements, were quashed as arbitrary and unsustainable. The Court directed reinstatement with consequential benefits and mandated consideration of absorption into government service. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No previous judicial precedents were cited in the judgment. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Botany in 1997 and terminated in 2013 following alleged unauthorized absence, without inquiry or hearing. The period of absence from 01-06-2011 to 31-05-2012 was treated as Extraordinary Leave. After conversion of the college to a government institution, petitioner sought revocation and absorption; official reports indicated termination was not in accordance with law, but authorities rejected his representations without reasons. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Manipur |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering service termination/discipline in aided academic institutions |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that removal from service in aided colleges cannot be effected without an inquiry, hearing, and prior statutory approval.
- Termination orders issued without following Rule 4(b) of the Conduct and Discipline Rules, or natural justice, are liable to be quashed as arbitrary.
- Administrative authorities may not abdicate responsibility merely because the appointing/terminating authority is an autonomous college body.
- Directions for reinstatement with consequential benefits and consideration for government absorption may be issued when procedural safeguards are ignored.
- Lawyers representing educational employees should meticulously verify compliance with all disciplinary and statutory procedures before or after termination actions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner’s service was terminated without (a) any inquiry, (b) the opportunity to be heard, and (c) prior approval of the Director of Education.
- Rule 4(b) of the Conduct and Discipline Rules mandates that none of the enumerated penalties, including removal from service, shall be imposed without giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause and obtaining the Director’s approval, except in specific exceptional circumstances not applicable in this case.
- The suspension order itself indicated the absence period was treated as Extraordinary Leave, negating grounds for penalty on that basis.
- Communications between the Principal and Director of Higher Education as well as official reports confirmed the termination was inconsistent with legal requirements.
- The Court declared the termination and subsequent rejection of representations arbitrary, violative of natural justice and the prevailing statutory framework.
- The impugned orders were quashed, and the Court issued directions for immediate reinstatement and consideration for government absorption within a fixed period.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Termination was effectuated without inquiry or opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice principles.
- The period of alleged unauthorized absence had already been treated as Extraordinary Leave.
- Termination was in violation of Rule 4(b) of Conduct and Discipline Rules and lacked Director’s approval.
- Authorities ignored official communications confirming the illegality of termination.
- Requested quashing of termination and rejection orders, coupled with direction for reinstatement and consideration for government absorption.
Respondents
- Termination was executed by the Governing Body Secretary, which the Administrative Department cannot override.
- Only the college Governing Body had authority to revoke termination; administrative authorities lacked jurisdiction.
- Name of petitioner was never submitted for government absorption and consideration was thus not possible.
- Writ petition is devoid of merit and should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The petitioner was initially appointed Lecturer in Botany at Biramangol College in 1997. In 2013, he was suspended for alleged unauthorized absence, though the absence for one year was treated as Extraordinary Leave. On the basis of a college Governing Body resolution, his service was terminated without any inquiry or opportunity to be heard, and without approval from the Director of Education. After the college’s conversion to a government institution, the petitioner submitted several representations seeking revocation and absorption into government service. Despite official correspondence suggesting the termination was irregular, authorities rejected his requests without providing reasons, leading to the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 4(b) of the Conduct and Discipline Rules for Aided College Employees: Removal from service or other disciplinary penalties cannot be imposed unless the employee is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause and the Director of Education has approved the action. Exceptions are strictly limited and not applicable in the present matter.
- Manipur Education Code, 1982: Cited via correspondence and consideration of proper disciplinary process adherence.
- The Court adopted a strict interpretation upholding the mandatory nature of inquiry, hearing, and statutory approval for termination.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were reported in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were set in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing requirements regarding inquiry, hearing, and approval for termination under educational service disciplinary rules are affirmed and applied.