Legal
Play a Legal Game to Cover-up Guilty?
Dec
Table of Contents:
Legal Comments on Supreme Court Judgement (CIVIL APPEAL NO.12845 OF 2024 )
Facts of the case
The respondents were doctors in the Uttar Pradesh State Government Service. They joined the service in 1989, 1991, and 1994. The respondents applied for voluntary retirement on 05th January 2008, 6th October 2008, and 7th December 2006 respectively and after making the applications, all of them remained absent from duty. Later a termination order against these Doctors was passed by the department on 03 May 2010 in the exercise of powers under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!High Court judgment
The respondents’ doctors preferred separate writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court allowed these writ petitions and, while quashing the order of termination, passed an order of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits in favor of the respondent. The High Court held that in the facts of the case, clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable. The High Court held that the appellants had failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary inquiry.
Supreme Court judgment
After the Order of the High Court Allahabad, the department approached for appeal in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court took a call and declared that the order of the High Court was not justified. So the Supreme Court did modification in the High Court order and passed judgment.
According to the Supreme Court, this legal process took approximately 16 years. Even after this 16-year legal battle, the doctors received only their legal dues which they would have received if the department had approved their request for voluntary retirement.
New Horizon
Now this judgement creates a few questions.
- Who was the actual guilty? The doctors who have applied for Voluntary Retirement application or those officers of the State Government who have kept these applications pending for years together or the Judge of the High Court of Allahabad who passed the order of reinstatement of those doctors who don’t wish to serve the state government or any other related persons in this case. The judges of the High Court are the most learned person among all these above and shouldn’t they be held morally liable for their wrong judgment?
- The moral of the story is that the Judges are immune, the departmental officers are immune, the state government is also immune and it is the individual who is not immune and suffers in legal process.
- Is there any remedy to the aggrieved person? There is no remedy to the doctors against the state government and no remedy to the state government against these unwilling doctors who never wanted to serve anymore.
- What about the public money engaged in these years of litigation and who is liable? It shows that the Public money (Tax) is collected by the state to fight the case against the individual and no one is liable if the public money will be wasted legally in such an illegal way.
- What is the future of State Government Service? It’s too risky sometimes to get your legal benefits you may struggle so long.
For the readers annexed below are the selected paragraph of the Supreme Court Judgement.
Relevant part of Supreme Courts judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12845 OF 2024
(Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25967 of 2015)
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …APPELLANTS
Versus
SANDEEP AGARWAL …RESPONDENT
with CIVIL APPEAL NO.12846 OF 2024
(Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15618 of 2016)
and CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12847-12848 OF 2024
(Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 18766-67 of 2016)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE SUPREME COURT-
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondents remained absent from the duties for more than 2 to 3 years about which there is no dispute. He submitted that considering the fact that a few thousand doctors took recourse to absenteeism, from the order of termination dated 03rd May 2010 itself, it is apparent that it was impracticable to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the defaulting doctors. He submitted that the grievance in the petitions filed before the High Court was essentially about the failure of the appellants to pass orders on the applications for VRS. Learned counsel pointed out that in such petitions, there was no occasion to pass an order of reinstatement considering the conduct of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned orders of the High Court are illegal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellants kept applications for VRS filed by the respondents pending without taking any decision thereon for an unreasonably long time. The decision taken on the applications made by the respondents was never conveyed to the respondents. Without deciding the applications seeking VRS, the State Government initiated proceedings for termination from service. The learned counsel submitted that the order of termination was illegal as clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) was not applicable to the facts of the case.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The applications made by the respondents for seeking VRS were kept pending by the appellants for no reason till the orders of termination were passed. No reasons are forthcoming in the counter filed by the appellants before the High Court for keeping the applications pending for such a long time.
8. It is true that the conduct of the appellants in not deciding the applications for VRS cannot be supported at all. However, there was no reason for the respondents to take recourse to absenteeism. When the respondents found that their applications were not decided within a reasonable time, they could have adopted remedies in accordance with the law. But, in any event, the appellants ought to have decided the VRS applications within a reasonable time. But that was not done. It is necessary to note that the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 12847-12848 of 2024 have already reached the age of superannuation.
9. However, there was no justification for the High Court to pass an order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The most appropriate order would have been to direct the appellants to decide the applications for the grant of VRS. Now, it is too late in the day to do that, as a period of more than 16 years has elapsed from the dates on which applications for VRS were made. At the same time, the order of reinstatement would be inappropriate considering the conduct of the respondents of remaining absent from duties for a few years.
10. Therefore, the interests of justice would be served by setting aside the order of termination dated 3rd May 2010, and by directing the appellants to accept an application for VRS with effect from the date of the order of termination. There is nothing on the record to show that after 3rd May, 2010, there was no source of livelihood for the respondents who are doctors. Therefore, we propose to direct that the respondents will not be entitled to pension till the date of this order. However, the respondents would be entitled to refixation of their pension on the basis of VRS with effect from 3rd May, 2010, if the pension is otherwise payable. We are exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between the parties in peculiar facts of the case.
9. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) Impugned judgments and orders are hereby quashed and set aside;
(ii) The applications made by the respondents for the grant of VRS are hereby allowed, and the order of 03rd May 2010 shall stand substituted by an order of their voluntary retirement;
(iii) We direct that the respondents stand voluntarily retired with effect from 03rd May, 2010;
(iv) We, however, make it clear that the respondents will not be entitled to arrears of salary or any monetary benefits, including pension, if otherwise payable till the date of this order. We direct the appellants to release monetary benefits to the respondents within a period of three months from today. However, pension,
if any payable, shall be fixed by treating the date of voluntary retirement as 3rd May, 2010. The pension shall be payable from the date of this order.
Appeals are accordingly partly allowed on the above terms with no orders as to costs.
