STATE OF U.P. Vs. SANDEEP AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The respondents who are doctors joined the service of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent in the Civil Appeal No. 12845 of 2024 joined service on 30/6/1994. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 12846 of 2024 joined service on 25/9/1989 and the respondent in Civil Appeal Nos. 12847-12848 of 2024 joined service on 21/2/1991. The respondents applied for voluntary retirement (for short "VRS") on 5/1/2008, 6/10/2008 and 7/12/2006 respectively. After making the applications, all of them remained absent for a considerably long time, along with several other medical officers.

(2.) On 3/5/2010, an Order was passed by the appellants in the exercise of powers under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. By the said order, the employment of the respondents, along with more than four hundred other doctors, was terminated. The respondents preferred separate writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By the impugned judgment dtd. 17/4/2014 in Civil Appeal No. 12845 of 2024, the High Court allowed the writ petition and, while quashing the order of termination, passed an order of reinstatement with all the consequential benefits in favour of the respondent. The High Court held that in the facts of the case, clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was not applicable. The High Court held that the appellants had failed to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a disciplinary enquiry.

(3.) In Civil Appeal No. 12846 of 2024, by the impugned judgment dtd. 18/9/2013, similar relief was granted to the respondent. In addition, the High Court directed the appellants to consider the application for VRS submitted by the respondent and directed the appellants to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000.00 to the respondent.