Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Sandeep Agarwal & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 12845-12848 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 25967 of 2015, 15618 of 2016, and 18766-67 of 2016)
Date of Judgment: 19th December 2024
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., and Augustine George Masih, J.
Facts of the Case
The respondents, government doctors in Uttar Pradesh, applied for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) between 2006 and 2008 but did not receive any response from the State Government. Due to administrative inaction, they remained absent from duty for several years. On 3rd May 2010, the State terminated their employment along with over 400 other doctors under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, claiming that holding disciplinary inquiries was impracticable. The respondents challenged this order in the Allahabad High Court, which quashed the termination and ordered reinstatement with full benefits. The State appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.
Contentions of the Appellants
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that since the doctors were absent from duty for several years, conducting individual disciplinary inquiries was not feasible. They contended that the mass absenteeism had severely impacted public healthcare services. The State also asserted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering reinstatement instead of directing consideration of the pending VRS applications.
Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents claimed that the State failed to process their VRS applications for an unreasonably long time, compelling them to remain absent from duty. They argued that termination without considering their VRS applications violated due process. They also contended that invoking Article 311(2)(b) was inappropriate, as there was no evidence showing that holding a disciplinary inquiry was impracticable.
Issues on This Judgment
- Whether the State Government’s invocation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution was justified.
- Whether the High Court was right in ordering reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
- Whether the respondents’ VRS applications should have been considered before terminating their services.
Observations/Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court found that the State acted unjustly by failing to decide on the respondents’ VRS applications for several years, leading to their prolonged absence from duty. The Court held that invoking Article 311(2)(b) was unjustified, as the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that holding individual inquiries was impracticable. However, it also found that the respondents’ absenteeism was not excusable. The Court determined that the High Court’s order of reinstatement with full benefits was excessive and that directing consideration of VRS applications would have been more appropriate.
Principles Laid Down by the Court
- Article 311(2)(b) can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances where holding a disciplinary inquiry is genuinely impracticable, supported by compelling evidence.
- Administrative delay in processing VRS applications cannot justify prolonged absenteeism by employees.
- Courts must balance competing equities by ensuring administrative accountability while considering the consequences of prolonged absence from duty.
Final Order
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s reinstatement order but also set aside the State’s termination orders. It directed that the respondents be considered voluntarily retired from 3rd May 2010, the date of termination. The respondents were denied salary arrears or pension for the period between their termination and the date of the judgment. Pension, if applicable, would be fixed as of 3rd May 2010, but payable only from the date of the judgment. The State was ordered to disburse all applicable retirement benefits within three months.
Importance of This Judgment to Society
This judgment underscores the balance between administrative accountability and employee rights. It highlights the importance of timely decision-making by public authorities and the need for employees to adopt lawful remedies rather than resorting to absenteeism. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of Article 311(2)(b) and establishes a precedent ensuring that governmental actions against employees follow due process.
