State of U.P. & Ors. Vs Sandeep Agarwal (Supreme Court of India)
In the case abovementioned Hon’ble SC have directed state of UP to assume VRS of the respondent doctors from the date of application.
Hon’ble Allahabad HC allowed the writ petitions of the respondent, wh0 are doctor, and were terminated on ground of remaining absent from the service for along time. Before that all of the respondents applied for voluntarily retirement scheme (VRS). Order of termination was passed under article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India without holding any disciplinary enquiry. HC further held that clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable. In addition, HC directed to consider VRS application of the respondents.
It is argued on behalf of the state that respondents remained absent from the duties for more than 2 to 3 years about which there is no dispute hence it was impracticable to conduct a disciplinary enquiry against the defaulting doctors. 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.
The counsel for the respondents submitted that the applications for VRS filed by the respondents were kept 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. It was argued 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.
