The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an employee’s application for voluntary retirement (VRS) must be duly processed even if disciplinary proceedings or misconduct charges are pending, provided the employee is medically unfit to face such an inquiry. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Siddharth Nandan, emphasized that when medical evidence clearly establishes an employee’s incapacity to understand or participate in disciplinary proceedings, the authorities are bound to consider the VRS application sympathetically and in accordance with law. The judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary action must be fair, humane, and in alignment with the employee’s physical and mental condition.
The case arose from an appeal filed by Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (DVVNL), Aligarh, against the order of a Single Judge directing the department to process a VRS application submitted on behalf of a disabled employee. The employee had served as a Technician Grade-II and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings that culminated in his dismissal from service and a recovery order dated April 2022. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court, contending that his dismissal was unlawful as he was medically unfit at the time and incapable of defending himself in an inquiry. The High Court, in an earlier proceeding, had set aside both the dismissal and recovery orders, observing that there was credible material showing that the employee was suffering from serious health issues and that the disciplinary proceedings were held without properly assessing his capacity to participate.
Following that earlier direction, the High Court ordered the formation of a medical board to assess the employee’s physical and mental condition and to determine whether he was fit to face an inquiry. The medical board subsequently found that the employee had suffered multiple brain strokes, which had resulted in severe cognitive impairment and significant physical disability. The report confirmed that he was unable to comprehend, communicate, or meaningfully participate in any form of disciplinary proceedings. On the strength of this medical conclusion, the employee’s wife submitted an application for voluntary retirement on medical grounds in July 2024. Despite receiving the application, the department did not act upon it and continued to keep the matter in abeyance, citing the pending misconduct charges.
The employee again approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was allowed by a Single Judge. The Court directed the department to process the VRS application without being influenced by the pending charges, given the employee’s established medical unfitness. Challenging this decision, the department filed an intra-court appeal, arguing that disciplinary proceedings should be concluded before considering any request for voluntary retirement. The Division Bench, however, dismissed this contention. It noted that the earlier order of the Court—directing that an inquiry could proceed only if the employee was medically fit—had already attained finality. Since the medical board’s findings, later corroborated by an assessment from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, conclusively proved the employee’s incapacity to participate in an inquiry, the department’s insistence on continuing proceedings was found unjustified.
The Court held that in such circumstances, the right to seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds cannot be curtailed by the mere pendency of misconduct proceedings. It reiterated that once an employee is declared medically unfit to face inquiry, any continuation of disciplinary action would be meaningless and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Bench therefore affirmed the Single Judge’s decision and directed the authorities to process the employee’s VRS application within four weeks. This ruling underscores the Court’s commitment to ensuring that administrative actions respect the dignity and rights of employees suffering from serious medical conditions, balancing the need for accountability with compassion and procedural fairness.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.