MAFATLAL NARAINDAS BAROT vs DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal of the appellant, a permanent employee of the State Transport Corporation, was invalid as it violated Clause 4(b) of the service regulations, which mandates providing an opportunity to show cause against proposed punishment. The Court emphasized that absence without leave constitutes misconduct under Clauses 38 and 40, but the respondent failed to comply with the principles of natural justice by not framing charges or allowing the appellant to defend himself. Consequently, the dismissal order was quashed, reinforcing the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in employment termination cases.