Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Sanjeet More vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited on 20 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
1 WP-29906-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 29906 of 2022
SHRI SANJEET MORE AND OTHERS
Versus
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Miss Akanksha Sisodia - Advocate through Video Conferencing with
Shri Raman Choubey - Advocate for the Petitioner.
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.
ORDER
Reserved on 14.08.2025
Pronounced on 20.08.2025
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
2 WP-29906-2022
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
3 WP-29906-2022
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 Petitioner No.2 being wife,
was repeatedly communicating with the BHEL Authorities that the
whereabouts of her husband are not known and he has left the house without
informing his whereabouts in October, 2017 and his location is now not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
4 WP-29906-2022
known to the family.
8. Therefore, it is contended that once the Petitioner No.1 has
voluntarily left the company of the family and left the employment of the
Employer by willfully absenting from duties from October, 2017, therefore,
it was a case of abandonment of services for which no sympathy can be
extended to the Petitioner No.1. It is further argued that in fact the Petitioner
No.1 was fed up with family and with his life and he had left everything and
went to some other place to live a life of solitude which is duly indicated
from the documents and material placed on record. Therefore, the
respondents have not done anything wrong in compulsorily retiring the
Petitioner No.1 from service because even otherwise, it is duly evident from
the record that he did not wish to serve the employer and he wished to live a
life of solitude. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition by submitting
that dispensing with the enquiry is permissible as per Rule 13 (ii) of Rules of
1975. It is further argued that as per the relevant Regulations governing grant
of medical benefits and pension to retired employees, clause 2.3 of Health
Scheme (Annexure R-2) and clause 4.8 of Pension Scheme (Annexure R-3)
bars such benefits to those employees who are compulsorily retired by way
of penalty. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to pension and medical
benefits.
9. Heard.
10. In the present case, the Petitioner No.1 was employee of B.H.E.L.
and he was initially employed as Medical Officer. He is a trained Doctor and
ascended the organization ladder by securing promotions from time to time
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
5 WP-29906-2022
and lastly, he was posted as Deputy General Manager (Medical). It is not
disputed that he had recurring bouts of depression and was admitted in
hospital for treatment of depression first time in the year 2011. However,
thereafter, he joined the duties and as evident from the impugned Order
Annexure P-1, there were no significant unauthorized absences of the
Petitioner No.1 in the year 2015 and 2016 which are only 19 and 01
respectively in the said two years.
11. Thereafter, the Petitioner No.1 absconded from duties from
21.08.2017 and returned back on duty on 16.10.2017. He again absconded
on 27.10.2017 and from then onwards, he was continuously absent from his
workplace without intimation to the Controlling Officer or any other
authority of the Employer in any manner.
12. The absence of the Petitioner was such that his whereabouts were
not known even to the family as evident from the missing person complaint
lodged by the Petitioner No.2 (his wife) firstly on 21.08.2017 and then again
on 02.11.2017 at Police Station, Ayodhya Nagar, District Bhopal. In fact,
from a perusal of Newspaper report which is part of Annexure P-4, it is
evident that the petitioner even wrote a note before leaving his house and
mentioned that he is feeling mis-managed and is unable to manage himself
and left the home between 3.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m. early in the morning
without informing any family member and even left his mobile phone
behind.
13. A number of Email communications are on record with the
Petition whereby the Petitioner No.2 being wife of Petitioner No.1 has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
6 WP-29906-2022
informed that the family does not know the whereabouts of the Petitioner
No.1 and he left his house on 21.08.2017 and came back on 25.08.2017 and
then again left the house in October, 2017 and since then, his whereabouts
are not known.
14. It was vehemently argued that the Petitioner No.1 was suffering
from Chronic Depression on account of which he left the home
incognito. However, it is not the case where a person went missing and never
returned. It is the case where the person went missing and then returned that
too, in the year 2020 which is 2 years after the termination Order Annexure
P-1 was issued by the respondents, and three years after he went missing.
The Petitioner No.1, evidently was not in need of employment anymore and
had abandoned the employment because he fled from his home, his
employment and left everything behind and went to live a life of solitude
somewhere and returned back only three years later in the year 2020 and that
too, when his family managed to search him and he was found at Ahmedabad
which was through a patient of the Petitioner No.1 who, the Petitioner No.1
was treating at Ahmedabad.
15. When this Court asked the Petitioners to indicate that where the
Petitioner No.1 had gone then reference was made to a letter dated
28.09.2020 which is stated to be written by Petitioner No.1 to the
Management of respondents and it is contended by the Petitioners that it was
written immediately upon return of the Petitioner No.1 to Bhopal. Thus, it is
evident that the Petitioner returned to Bhopal and returned to Company of
even his family three years after he went missing in October, 2017.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
7 WP-29906-2022
16. A perusal of the Letter dated 28.09.2020 clearly shows that the
Petitioner No.1 had willfully left the company of his family and his
employment and was working at some Hospital at Ahmedabad and doing
social service. He stated that for a long period, he served in a Hospital at
Ahmedabad and one of his patients at Ahmedabad traced his family and
informed his wife and then he was brought back to Bhopal on 11.02.2020.
The relevant part of Letter dated 28.09.2020 is as under:-
"After this episode I started taking treatment of Dr Somasundram
Psychiatrist as I was in a state of mental depression. After being
declared fit I joined duty on 16" Oct 2017. I again in a state of
despair left house on 27th Oct without leaving any notice of my
whereabouts. My wife filed a FIR in Ayodhya Nagar Bhopal
Police station on 2™ Nov 2017. (A copy of FIR is enclosed for
ready reference as Annexure-3) There was no communication
from my side with my family as I had left my mobile also at home
and my family tried to locate me ai all possible places. Somehow I
shifted to Ahmedabad and started helping and supporting poor
patients at Civil Hospital Ahmedabad, I stayed in hospital only
and then shifted to a dharamashala near Civil hospital in Jan 2020.
Husband of one of the cancer patients got to know my story
through interaction with me and he shared this confidentially with
Dr Onkar DGM Kasturba Hospital whose number somehow I
remembered and had shared with him. My family was informed by
Dr Onkar immediately and they rushed to Ahmedabad and brought
me back on 11" Feb 2020. Since then l am still under treatment of
Dr Somasundaram and i am now in a better position."
17. The aforesaid explanation given by the Petitioner No.1 duly
establishes that he started working at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. For
sometime he stayed in a hospital and then shifted to a Dharamshala. If the
Petitioner No.1 was working in a Hospital even on Pro Bono basis, then it
was evident that he was not mentally unfit and he was fully mentally fit
because otherwise he would not have been treating patients and working as a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
8 WP-29906-2022
Medical Doctor. The Petitioner No.1 is a duly trained medical Doctor and
once he was treating the patients at some responsible hospital at Ahmedabad
and some responsible hospital at Ahmedabad had allowed him to treat the
patients then it can safely be inferred by this Court this his mental condition
was good.
18. Therefore, it is clearly a case of the Petitioner No.1 voluntarily
abandoning his services as DGM (Medical) at B.H.E.L. and starting to work
at another Hospital at Ahmedabad and working there for almost three years.
19. In view of the above, this Court cannot find any fault in the
penalty awarded to the Petitioner No.1 which is of compulsory retirement
because it is clearly a case of abandonment of service and infact, not merely
of abandonment of service but also working somewhere else without taking
any leave from the Employer and without intimating the Employer.
20. The clause 30 (ii) of Rules of 1975 provides for dispensing with
enquiry in case enquiry is not reasonably practicable. The aforesaid clause is
as under:-
"30. SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN
CASES :-
(ii) where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner
provided in these Rules; or"
21. Once the Petitioner No.1 was not traceable to anybody known to
him dispensing with the enquiry in such a case cannot be stated to be misuse
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
9 WP-29906-2022
of the power given to the employer by the aforesaid clause. The Petitioner
No.1 was not suffering with any handicap so as to enable to join his duties at
Bhopal but he was happily working in a Hospital at Ahmedabad for a good
period of almost three years. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the
respondents have erred in dispensing with the enquiry. It is settled that in
appropriate case, the enquiry can be dispensed with. See - Ved Mitter Gill
Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2015 (8) SCC 86, Union Territory,
Chandigarh v. Mohinder Singh, 1997 (3) SCC 68, Chandigarh
Admninistration Vs. Ex S.I. Gurdit Singh, 1997 (1) SCC 430, Prithvipal
Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 314 and Tarsem Singh v. State of
Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 581.
22. In the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan , (1980) 4 SCC 379, it has
been held in para-17 that the failure to observe natural justice does at all
matter if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference,
the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Where on the
admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the
law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to
compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non-
observance of natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. But
it will be a pernicious principle to apply in other situations where
conclusions are controversial, however, slightly, and penalties are
discretionary.
23. In Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. , (2013) 10 SCC 253 ,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
10 WP-29906-2022
16. In Syndicate Bank v. Staff Assn. [(2000) 5 SCC 65 : 2000
SCC (L&S) 601] and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali
Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 965 : AIR 2000 SC 2783] this
Court ruled that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which
leave of any kind can be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and
ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an enquiry or
to give any notice as it would amount to useless formalities. A similar view
has been reiterated in Banaras Hindu University v. Shrikant [(2006) 11 SCC
42 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 327], Chief Engineer (Construction) v. Keshava
Rao [(2005) 11 SCC 229 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 872] and Bank of
Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog [(2009) 9 SCC 462 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 689] .
24. So far as the contention of the Petitioner that absence would
become misconduct only in the case of compelling circumstances, the
aforesaid contention and legal position cannot be denied. However, as in the
present case, the Petitioner after having absconded from duties and working
elsewhere at Ahmedabad, it cannot be said that the Petitioner No.1 was under
some compelling circumstances and on account of compelling
circumstances, he had been absenting from duties.
25. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had further raised a ground that
as per clause 25 (1), major penalty can only be awarded if there is criminal
prosecution. The aforesaid contention is utterly misconceived. For ready
reference, the concerned provision is as under:-
"25. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MAJOR
PENALTIES :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
11 WP-29906-2022
(1) No order imposing any of the major penalties
specified in Clause (f), (g),(h),(i) and (j) of Rule 23
shall be made except after an enquiry is held in
accordance with the rule. Proceedings under this Rule
may be initiated, for conduct which lends itself to both
criminal prosecution as well as disciplinary action, not
withstanding that a criminal case against the employee
in respect of same conduct is under investigation or
trial."
26. By a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the said
provision enables the disciplinary action even in those cases where criminal
case has been registered against the employee in respect of the same
conduct. Therefore, it is enabling provision that enables conducting enquiry
even in cases where criminal charges are pending against the employee and
this provision cannot be inferred to mean that unless criminal charges are
there, no major penalty can be awarded.
27. So far as the question of awarding penalty of compulsory
retirement is concerned, the overall conduct of the Petitioner No.1 was such
that he went missing in October, 2017, then returned back to his family in
February, 2020 and for the first time submitted a representation to the
Employer in September, 2020. Thereafter, he filed this Petition in the year
2022 when he was 59 years of age i.e. on the verge of retirement. This
chronology of events itself indicates that he never wanted to serve the
employer and he challenged the termination Order of the year 2018 in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39502
12 WP-29906-2022
year 2022 before this Court only when he reached the age of retirement
because his intention is only to get retiral benefits and not to serve the
Employer.
28. So far as the contentions regarding the Petitioner No.1 not being
entitled to Pension and family not being entitled to medical benefits is
concerned, the aforesaid are barred as per the concerned provisions of the
Pension Scheme and Medical Benefit Rules as per the relevant clauses as
mentioned above.
29. This Court cannot grant any relief to the Petitioners dehors the
provisions of Pension Scheme and Medical Benefit Scheme and it would be
for the Petitioners to challenge the aforesaid provisions of the said schemes.
The schemes bar such benefits to those employees who have been
compulsorily retired by way of punishment. The petitioners have admittedly
received an amount of Rs. 1.04 Crores towards PF and Gratuity.
30. Consequently, finding no reason to interfere in the impugned
Order of compulsory retirement, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
