Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK JAIN, J.
Shri Sanjeet More And Others - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29906 Of 2022
Decided On : 20-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Miss Akanksha Sisodia - Advocate through Video Conferencing with Shri Raman Choubey - Advocate for the Appellant
For the Respondent:Shri Praveen Namdeo - Government Advocate for the Respondent/State. appearing on behalf of Advocate General. Shri Ajay Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Rajeev Mishra - Advocate for the Respondent No.3.
Compulsory retirement without inquiry contravenes procedural rules; willful absence and voluntary abandonment justify such penalties in employment law.
Headnote:(A) B.H.E.L. CDA Rules, 1975 - Rule 30(ii), Rule 23(h), Rule 25(1) - Compulsory retirement imposed without inquiry deemed illegal - Penalties must follow due process as outlined in rules, absence due to illness significant - Absence considered willful if absence from duties without intimation and is not justified as compelling circumstances - Employee's conduct indicated voluntary abandonment of employment. (Paras 3-5, 27)
(B) Legal principles - Enquiry can be dispensed under compelling circumstances; penalty for misconduct aligns with conduct. (Paras 20-24)
(C) Employee's claim for benefits denied as per Pension and Medical Benefit Schemes respective to compulsory retirement circumstances. (Paras 28-29)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the compulsory retirement order without inquiry; the employee alleged chronic depression impacting conduct but was found to have voluntarily abandoned his position.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the penalties for abandonment of service, deeming the retirement justified without prior inquiry due to circumstances.
Issues: Whether due process was followed in imposing compulsory retirement, nature of absence, and eligibility for retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded voluntary absence and working elsewhere negated claims for leniency; absence not deemed due to compelling circumstances despite health issues.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to retirement order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on penalty and illness. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondents argue willful absence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioner's history of absence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. petitioner worked elsewhere post-absconding. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
VIVEK JAIN, J.
By way of this petition, challenge is made to Order Annexure P-1 dated 13.12.2018 whereby the respondents have awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement to the Petitioner while dispensing with the enquiry in terms of enabling provisions as per Rule 30 (ii) of B.H.E.L. CDA Rules, 1975.
2. The aforesaid Order dated 13.12.2018 is challenged by the Petitioners who are husband and wife, though the employee was only Petitioner No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the impugned penalty Order awards a major penalty as defined in the B.H.E.L. CDA Rules, 1975 (for short, Rules of 1975). It is contended that the penalty of compulsory retirement is mentioned as major penalty as per clause 23 (h) and as per clause 25 (1), the penalties specified in various clauses including clause (h) of Rule 23 can be imposed only after enquiry is held in accordance with the Rules of 1975. Therefore, it is argued that the penalty having been imposed without enquiry is illegal and contravenes clause 23 and 25 of the Rules of 1975.
4. It is further contended that the situations were not such under which the respondents could have dispensed with the enquiry because enquiry could actually have been held. It is further contended that the Petitioner No.1 was suffering from Chronic Depression and he had been suffering from the illness of depression at least since the year 2011 and various medical documents have been placed on record to contend that the Petitioner No.1 had been suffering from chronic depression since last so many years and the Petitioner No.1 went missing from his residence at Bhopal firstly, in August, 2017 and then again in October, 2017 and the Petitioner No.2 being his wife has lodged missing complaints in the concerned Police Station at Bhopal.
5. Therefore, it is not the case where the Petitioner No.1 was absent from duties without any compelling circumstances and since, he was suffering from chronic depression therefore, there were compelling circumstances for absence of the Petitioner No.1. Reliance is placed on judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B Parmar Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 to contend that if absence is a result of compelling circumstances, then absence cannot be held to be willful and it will not be a misconduct.
6. It is further contended that the punishment though is captioned as compulsory retirement but the Petitioner No.1 has got only Gratuity and Provident Fund but pension as well as medical benefits have been denied to the Petitioner No.1 as in cases of compulsory retirement by way of penalty the Regulations of respondent/BHEL do not permit grant of medical benefits and pension in such cases of compulsory retirement by way of punishment. Therefore, the punishment is more harsh than it appears. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned Order be set aside and the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service or granted full retiral benefits as he has admittedly as now passed the age of superannuation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that it was clearly a case of willful absence but since the whereabouts of the Petitioner No.1 were not known therefore, holding of enquiry was not reasonably practicable. It is vehemently argued by learned Senior Counsel that as per a number of correspondences placed on record by the Petitioners themselves, even the wife being Petitioner No.2 did not know the whereabouts of the Petitioner No.1 and had even lodged missing complaint. It is contended that a number of E-mail communications are placed on record by the Petitioners themselves as per which the Petitione
