Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal for Long Unauthorized Absence: State of Odisha vs. Ganesh Chandra Sahoo (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 January 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 17

Judges: D.Y. Chandrachud, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can an employee who remains absent for seven years and refuses a medical examination, claim leniency based on a belated medical certificate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a Follower Orderly of the Odisha State Armed Police (OSAP). The court had to determine whether the High Court was correct in substituting the punishment of discharge with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the dismissal order. The judgment was authored by Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, the respondent, was working as a Follower Orderly in the OSAP 4th Battalion, Rourkela. He took leave from May 25, 1991, to June 4, 1991, to visit his ailing mother. During his leave, he claimed to have suffered from cerebral malaria and was admitted to C.T. Hospital, Cuttack on May 31, 1991. He was then advised to rest for two months. He applied for a leave extension on June 12, 1991. The Commandant of the Battalion directed him to appear before the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO), Cuttack, for a medical examination. Despite repeated communications on October 22, 1991, and March 13, 1992, the respondent failed to appear for the medical examination. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The respondent did not respond to the notices, and the inquiry was conducted ex parte. The inquiry officer found him guilty, and the Commandant discharged him from service on December 30, 1993.

Four years later, the respondent appealed, which was rejected. His grievance petition to the Chief Minister of Orissa was also rejected on September 19, 2000. He then approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in 2003, claiming that he was mentally ill and could not respond to the notices. He submitted a medical certificate dated January 21, 1998, from Dr. G.C. Kar, a psychiatrist, stating he had been treated for “Maniac Depression Psychosis” since June 3, 1991. The Tribunal dismissed his application, doubting the veracity of the certificate. The High Court of Orissa, however, substituted the discharge order with compulsory retirement, which was then challenged in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Orissa Administrative Tribunal dismissed the respondent’s application, noting that the medical certificate from Dr. G.C. Kar did not specify that the respondent was under his treatment during the period of his absence (June 3, 1991 – January 21, 1998). The Tribunal also highlighted that the respondent had not claimed to be under psychiatric treatment before the issuance of this certificate. The Tribunal concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were fair and that the respondent was given adequate opportunity.

The High Court of Orissa, however, overturned the Tribunal’s decision. It noted that the respondent had no prior history of unauthorized absence and that the medical certificate from a psychiatric expert could not be easily dismissed. The High Court also made an observation that cerebral malaria often leads to mental illness. Based on these points, the High Court deemed the punishment of discharge to be excessive and replaced it with compulsory retirement.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code, 1939, which deals with leave for government servants absent for over five years. According to Rule 72:

“72. (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2) Where a Government servant does not resume duty after remaining on leave for a continuous period of five years, or where a Government servant after the expiry of his leave remains absent from duty otherwise than on foreign service or on account of suspension, for any period which together with the period of the leave granted to him exceeds five years, he shall, unless Government in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determine, be removed from service after following the procedure laid down in the Orissa Civil Services (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.”

The court noted that this rule allows for removal from service after five years of continuous absence unless the government determines that there are exceptional circumstances. The court also discussed the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions, referring to the High Court’s reliance on the case of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & another [AIR 2015 SC 3780].

Arguments

The State of Odisha argued that the High Court erred in applying the ratio of Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & another [AIR 2015 SC 3780] because the facts of the two cases were different. In Rajinder Kumar, the employee was absent for only 37 days, whereas the respondent in this case was absent for seven years. The State also contended that the respondent had defied the Commandant’s orders to appear before the CDMO for a medical examination, which showed a lack of seriousness about his health issues.

Ganesh Chandra Sahoo, on the other hand, argued that his mental condition from 1991 to 1998 prevented him from participating in the disciplinary proceedings and rejoining the battalion. He presented a medical certificate to support his claim of mental illness.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

Innovativeness of the argument: The State’s argument was innovative in highlighting the difference in the length of unauthorized absence between the present case and the case relied upon by the High Court. This distinction was crucial in demonstrating that the High Court erred in applying the principle of proportionality.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in substituting the punishment of discharge with compulsory retirement, considering the facts of the case and the principles of proportionality.

A sub-issue that the court dealt with was:

✓ Whether the medical certificate produced by the respondent was sufficient to justify his long absence and non-participation in the disciplinary proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed how each submission made by the parties was treated:

The Supreme Court’s view on the authorities:

✓ Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & another [AIR 2015 SC 3780]: The court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present facts due to the significant difference in the duration of unauthorized absence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The prolonged unauthorized absence of the respondent for seven years.
• The respondent’s defiance of the Commandant’s orders to appear for a medical examination by the CDMO.
• The lack of contemporaneous medical records to support the respondent’s claim of mental illness.
• The questionable nature of the medical certificate issued by Dr. G.C. Kar, which did not specify that he had treated the respondent during the period of his absence.
• The fact that the disciplinary proceedings were found to be fair and without any procedural flaws by the Tribunal.
• The inapplicability of the principle of proportionality as the facts of the case were different from Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & another [AIR 2015 SC 3780].

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court can be ranked as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning process can be illustrated as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the respondent’s mental illness justified his absence, as he did not provide sufficient proof of his condition and defied the order for medical examination. The Court also rejected the argument that the punishment was disproportionate, as the facts of the case were different from the case relied upon by the High Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the respondent’s prolonged absence, his defiance of orders, and the lack of credible medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have interfered with the disciplinary action.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“In the present case, we are inclined to think that the respondent by remaining away from duty since 1991 to 1998 without producing contemporaneous medical record has not only been irresponsible and indisciplined but tried to get away with it by producing the certificate of a specialist Doctor who may not have treated the respondent.”

“In the above circumstances, the High Court should not have granted relief to the respondent solely on the basis of the medical certificate of the specialist Doctor who may not have personally treated the patient. In the absence of relevant and contemporaneous medical records, the High Court should not have interfered with the disciplinary action and ordered for a lesser penalty.”

“On careful reading of the above provision we are quite sure that the situation here is not one of exceptional circumstances. In fact the veracity of the self-serving medical certificate to justify the seven years absence, was correctly doubted by the Tribunal.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Employees cannot justify long unauthorized absences with belated medical certificates, especially if they have defied orders for medical examination.

✓ Disciplinary authorities are not obligated to accept medical certificates that lack credibility or do not provide sufficient proof of illness.

✓ The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions is not applicable when the facts of the case are significantly different from previous cases.

✓ Courts should not interfere with disciplinary actions when the proceedings are found to be fair and without procedural flaws.

This judgment reinforces the importance of following official procedures and providing credible evidence when claiming medical reasons for absence. It also highlights that disciplinary authorities have the power to take strict action against employees who remain absent without authorization for long periods.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and upholding the dismissal order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss an employee for prolonged unauthorized absence cannot be overturned based on a belated medical certificate, especially when the employee defied orders for medical examination. The judgment clarifies that the principle of proportionality cannot be applied universally, and each case must be decided based on its specific facts. This case also reinforces the importance of credible medical evidence and adherence to official procedures in disciplinary matters. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the dismissal of Ganesh Chandra Sahoo. The court emphasized that the High Court erred in substituting the punishment of discharge with compulsory retirement, given the respondent’s prolonged unauthorized absence, defiance of medical examination orders, and lack of credible medical evidence. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of following procedures and providing valid reasons for absence.