Supreme Court Allows Voluntary Retirement for Absentee Doctors, Denies Back Pay (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 December 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 1015
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.
Can a government employer terminate employees for absenteeism without considering their pending applications for voluntary retirement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving doctors who had been terminated for prolonged absence. The core issue revolved around the legality of the termination order and whether the High Court’s order of reinstatement was appropriate. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The respondents, who were doctors employed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, had applied for voluntary retirement (VRS). The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 12845 of 2024 joined service on 30th June, 1994. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 12846 of 2024 joined service on 25th September, 1989 and the respondent in Civil Appeal Nos. 12847- 12848 of 2024 joined service on 21st February, 1991. They submitted their VRS applications on 05th January, 2008, 6th October, 2008 and 7th December, 2006 respectively. Following their applications, they remained absent from their duties for an extended period, along with several other medical officers.

On 03rd May, 2010, the State of Uttar Pradesh terminated the employment of the respondent doctors, along with over four hundred other doctors, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The doctors challenged this termination before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its judgment dated 17th April 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 12845 of 2024, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, quashed the termination order, and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The High Court held that the State had failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary enquiry, thus rendering clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution inapplicable.

In Civil Appeal No. 12846 of 2024, the High Court, in its judgment dated 18th September, 2013, granted similar relief to the respondent, directing the appellants to consider the VRS application and pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In Civil Appeal Nos. 12847 and 12848 of 2024, the High Court, in its judgment dated 23rd September, 2015, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to consider the VRS application.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which deals with the dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. The second proviso to Article 311(2) states:

“Provided further that this clause shall not apply—
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.”

The core issue is the applicability of clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2), which allows for termination without an inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to hold one.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The doctors remained absent from duties for more than 2 to 3 years.
• Given that a few thousand doctors were absent, it was impracticable to conduct individual disciplinary inquiries against each of them.
• The High Court should not have ordered reinstatement, considering the conduct of the respondents.
• The primary grievance in the petitions was the failure to decide on the VRS applications, not the termination itself.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The appellants kept the VRS applications pending for an unreasonably long time without any decision.
• The decision on the VRS applications was never communicated to the respondents.
• The termination was illegal because clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable.

Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the termination of the respondent doctors was justified under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, given that their VRS applications were pending.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. The primary authority considered is Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India: The Court interpreted the second proviso of Article 311(2)* to mean that while the State could terminate employees without inquiry under certain circumstances, it should have considered the pending VRS applications.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors. While acknowledging the doctors’ prolonged absenteeism, the Court also noted the State’s failure to address the pending VRS applications. The Court aimed to balance the interests of both parties, avoiding full reinstatement while also not completely denying the doctors their dues. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that some of the respondents had reached the age of superannuation.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court acknowledged that the High Court’s order of reinstatement was not appropriate given the conduct of the respondents. However, the Court also noted that the State had not decided on the VRS applications. The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, setting aside the termination order and directing that the respondents be treated as voluntarily retired from the date of the termination order. The Court also directed that the respondents would not be entitled to arrears of salary or any monetary benefits, including pension, till the date of the order, but their pension would be fixed based on the date of the deemed voluntary retirement.

The Supreme Court stated: “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.”

The Court also observed: “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.”

The Court further clarified: “We direct that the respondents stand voluntarily retired with effect from 03rd May, 2010.”

The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging the State’s prerogative to terminate employees for absenteeism while also ensuring that the employees’ pending VRS applications were given due consideration. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that some of the respondents had reached the age of superannuation.

Key Takeaways

• Government employers should decide on pending VRS applications before terminating employees for absenteeism.
• Employees who are absent without authorization should not expect reinstatement with full back pay.
• The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 to ensure complete justice in peculiar cases.
• This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in employment matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are quashed and set aside.
• The applications made by the respondents for the grant of VRS are allowed, and the order of 03rd May 2010 shall stand substituted by an order of their voluntary retirement.
• The respondents stand voluntarily retired with effect from 03rd May, 2010.
• 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.
• The appellants are directed to release monetary benefits to the respondents within a period of three months from today.
• Pension, if any payable, shall be fixed by treating the date of voluntary retirement as 3rd May, 2010, and shall be payable from the date of this order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the State can terminate employees for absenteeism, it must consider pending VRS applications. The Supreme Court has clarified that while it will not reinstate employees who have been absent without authorization, it will ensure that their pending VRS applications are given due consideration. This case also highlights the use of Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in peculiar circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sandeep Agarwal provides clarity on the handling of employee terminations when VRS applications are pending. The Court balanced the State’s need to maintain discipline with the employees’ rights to have their applications considered. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the Court’s role in ensuring complete justice.