The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Deputy General Manager of BHEL, challenging his compulsory retirement from service. The order, pronounced by Hon’ble Justice Vivek Jain, upheld the 2018 penalty imposed by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).
The employee, a doctor, was compulsorily retired after being absent from duty without intimation from October 2017. The central issue was the employer's decision to dispense with a formal departmental enquiry before awarding this major penalty.
The petitioner argued that his absence was not willful but was caused by chronic depression, a condition he had been treated for since 2011. His wife had even filed missing person reports with the police. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Krushnakant B Parmar Vs. Union of India, his counsel contended that absence due to compelling circumstances cannot be treated as misconduct.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Serious Assault Case Citing Victim’s Critical Injuries
BHEL, represented by senior counsel, argued that holding an enquiry was not "reasonably practicable" as the employee's whereabouts were completely unknown, even to his own family. Evidence included emails from the petitioner's wife stating she had no information about his location.
The court's examination revealed a critical fact: the petitioner had not simply gone missing due to illness. He had voluntarily left his home and job in Bhopal and moved to Ahmedabad, where he worked at a civil hospital for nearly three years.
"The Petitioner No.1 had willfully left the company of his family and his employment and was working at some Hospital at Ahmedabad," the court observed, referencing a letter written by the petitioner himself upon his return in 2020.
This proved he was mentally fit to work, undermining his claim of debilitating depression. The court found this to be a clear case of voluntary abandonment of service.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Directs Timely Decision on Teacher’s Transfer and Service Grievance
The court ruled that BHEL was justified in invoking Rule 30(ii) of its Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975, which allows dispensing with an enquiry when it is not reasonably practicable to hold one.
"Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible... the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice," the order stated, referencing the precedent set in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan.
The court also noted that the petition was filed in 2022, just as the petitioner was nearing superannuation, suggesting the motive was to secure retirement benefits and not to re-join service. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Siri Sanjeet More and Others vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29906 of 2022
