Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chief Genera Manager vs Shri Nagendra Singh on 29 September, 2025
1
WP No. 6017 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
WRIT PETITION No. 6017 of 2025
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
SHRI NAGENDRA SINGH
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Anoop Nair - Sr. Advocate with Ms. Akashmi Trivedi -
Advocate for the petitioner - company.
Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh- Advocate for the respondent -
workman.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
(Reserved on 23.09.2025)
(Pronounced on 29.09.2025)
The present petition has been filed by the employer- Northern Coal
Fields limited challenging the award dated 04.07.2024 passed by the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') thereby ordering converting the
penalty of dismissal into discharge due to being medically unfit for the
reason under prolonged treatment with little hope to resume duty in near
future and also to be considered for consequential benefits in the case of
discharge in case the workman puts such claim before management.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-management has vehemently
argued before this Court that in this particular case the respondent-
workman was working on the post of Chemist with the petitioner-company
and the petitioner-company had dismissed the respondent-workman from
the services after carrying out a departmental enquiry after following the
complete procedure required for compliance of principles of natural justice
and the Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the finding of fact recorded
by the departmental authority. It is contended that there was material
available on record to show that absence of the workman was wilful and
termination was rightly done as he was terminated on account of long
absence upon being charge-sheeted for such lapse committed by him which
was long absence from duties. It is argued that workman was continuously
absent from 16.03.2003 but he failed to report on duty despite being earlier
proceeded against in the matter of part period of absence from 2003 and
punished with the penalty of reversion from Senior Chemist Grade-A to
Chemist Grade-B vide order dated 17.08.2006. When despite such
punishment of reversion being imposed on him on account of absence from
16.03.2003 in the year 2006 he still refused to report back on duty and then
a fresh charge sheet was issued to him in which he has been found guilty of
violation of clause 26.22, 26.24 and 26.34 because he had been habitual of
absenteeism and abandoned the duties and employment without any just
cause and without permission or sanction from the employer. It is therefore
vehemently argued that the Tribunal has transgressed its limits of judicial
review as provided under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and also
transgressed the limits of jurisdiction under Section 11-A thereof in the
matter of interference with penalty. Reliance is placed on various
judgments and more particularly the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the State of Odisha Vs. Ganesh Chandra Sahu (Civil Appeal
No.9514 of 2019) decided on 10.01.2020.
3. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
respondent-workman that the order of Tribunal is fully justified in
accordance with limits of jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Industrial
Disputes Act. It is argued that the respondent -workman was mentally ill
and this fact of mental illness has been duly proved by the evidence on
record before the disciplinary authority which the enquiry officer failed to
take into consideration without any just and reasoned cause and therefore,
the Tribunal has not erred at all in converting the penalty of dismissal into
discharge on medical grounds. It is argued that the respondent was
suffering since long time with mental illness and there was no possibility
for him to return back on duty. He was working on a sensitive post of
Chemist and if he had returned back on duty as he was suffering from
mental illness of 'obsessive-compulsive disorder' (OCD), then he being
working as Chemist in coal mine, if any error had been committed by him
during the course of discharge of duties it would not only he would have
had put his own life in peril but lives of many other workmen in peril and it
was a case where the petitioner itself should have granted discharge to the
workman rather than pressuring the workman time and again to report back
on work. If the respondent had joined duty then it would have jeopardized
the life and limb of many persons and not only the respondent-workman.
4. It is argued that the respondent took treatment from Nehru Shatabdi
Chikitsalaya ('NSC' for short ) which is run by the petitioner-company
itself and all the doctors are employed by the petitioner-company and the
respondent has been under treatment for psychiatric illness of OCD since
last many years and treatment papers were duly placed on record by the
respondent and even the doctors treating him were issued a note by the
management and they did verify that the respondent has been taking
medicines of psychiatric illness from these doctors. However, despite that,
by misinterpreting the notes written by these doctors, the company
wrongfully dismissed him from service. He was employed in the company
since the year 1980 and till the date of absence i.e. 2003 he had put in
almost 23 years of service and as on the date of dismissal order having
been passed in the year 2011 his total length of service was 31 years and he
was due to be retired in June, 2016. It is not a case of willful absence and
therefore, the award be confirmed.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, the Tribunal has converted the penalty of
dismissal into discharge on medical grounds and while doing so the
Tribunal has held that the respondent-workman was duly undergoing
treatment for mental illness as he was mentally ill. The Tribunal has given a
categorical finding of the fact that the workman was taking treatment from
NSC hospital run by the petitioner-company itself from the doctors
employed by the petitioner-company.
7. From the documents available on record it is seen that initially a
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in the year 2004 relating to his
absence from 16.03.2003 in pursuance to which he was given penalty of
reversion on 17.08.2006. However, he did not join the duties despite that
penalty and then again a fresh charge sheet dated 03.12.2009 was issued to
the respondent alleging therein that he has submitted an application on
08.07.2007 that he is undergoing treatment for mental illness at NSC
hospital and he would join after getting fit. It was alleged that he was asked
to report to Dr. Saurabh Kumar at NSC hospital vide letter dated
08.09.2007 and then again on 23.05.2008 he was directed to be remain
present in the office but on 29.05.2008 he submitted an application that
being mentally ill and he is undergoing treatment in NSC hospital and
would report back after getting fit.
8. From the aforesaid contents of the charge-sheet which is part of
record of Tribunal as Annexure M-6, it is clear that the respondent-
workman had been regularly intimating the employer that he is undergoing
treatment for mental illness and that he is unable to join the duties as he is
mentally ill.
9. Mental illness has different connotations and mental illness does not
mean a person has got insane or that he has lost his mental balance. The
manner in which the charge-sheet Annexure M-6 has been worded shows
utter lack of empathy of the employer towards mental illness and they are
treating mental illness to be a state of insanity. It infact depicts the
traditional view of taking mental illness as insanity, and nothing in between
sanity and insanity. A person may be mentally ill, though he may not
otherwise be mentally disabled. It was argued before this Court that only
because workman participated in enquiry, hence, he was not mentally ill. It
again reflects the lack of understanding of mental illness and the utter
inability of the employer to differentiate between illness and insanity. The
respondent-workman was working in a sensitive establishment doing a
sensitive job of Chemist in a coal mine. If the respondent who was
suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder had joined the duties despite
being under treatment for such an illness then any error committed by him
in course of discharge of duties in the manner of blasting and other
chemical processes involved in open cast coalmines, then the lives of many
person would have been jeopardized. This Court is of the opinion that the
act of the respondent in not joining the duties was infact a responsible act
on the part of respondent because his one act of rejoining duties despite
being suffering from OCD and doing the sensitive job of Chemist in a coal
mine would have jeopardized the lives of fellow workmen and property of
the company.
10. The charge-sheet mentioned that the respondent failed to appear
before Dr. Saurabh Kumar at NSC hospital. This Court has gone through
the treatment papers of NSC hospital which is run by the petitioner-
company itself and as per the treatment paper of NSC hospital the
petitioner appeared before Dr. Saurabh Kumar on 10.02.2007, 09.03.2007
and 14.03.2007. The treatment papers are duly placed on record as part of
record of the Tribunal and the said treatment papers have not at all been
disputed by the petitioner as forged. The treatment papers belong to the
hospital run by the petitioner-company itself and the petitioner cannot
wriggle out of the said treatment papers.
11. When this Court went through the said treatment papers of NSC
Hospital, Singrauli then it was found that the petitioner has been
continuously taking treatment of psychiatric illness from time to time and
doctors have been prescribing medicines to him since a number of years for
OCD.
12. The company tried to get over such treatment papers by getting two
notes written by the treating doctors of the NSC hospital Singrauli which
are the queries put by the company on 05.04.2011 to Dr. Santosh Kumar
Mishra and Dr.Saurabh Kumar, Medical Superintendent and Senior
Medical Officer at NSC Hospital. The note of Dr. S.K. Mishra was denied
by the workman during course of enquiry. However, even if this note of Dr.
S.K. Mishra is taken at its face value, it mentions that the respondent is
getting treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder and came to him for
repetition of medicines as prescribed earlier. He was referred to Psychiatrist
for expert opinion and he got repetition of medicines off and on from Dr.
S.K. Mishra. He further opined that expert opinion regarding nature of
disease may be taken from Psychiatrist.
13. The aforesaid note of Dr. S.K. Mishra does make it clear that Dr.
S.K. Mishra had indeed being treating the respondent-workman for
obsessive-compulsive disorder since a number of years and he only tried to
dilute the treatment by saying that he is treating the respondent but the
respondent has not taken any opinion from Psychiatrist. If the treating
Doctor employed by the petitioner was treating an employee for Psychiatric
illness for a number of years without any confirmed diagnosis then infact it
was that Doctor who was to be charge-sheeted and removed from rolls of
the Medical Council, and not respondent -workman who was to be charge-
sheeted. The act of the petitioner company in taking note from Dr.
S.K.Mishra would not help the company in any manner whatsoever.
14. The other note is taken from Dr. Saurabh Kumar and the allegation
against the respondent is that the respondent did not report to Dr. Saurabh
Kumar despite being asked to do so in September, 2007. It has already been
noted above by this Court that the respondent had been reporting to Dr.
Saurabh Kumar in February/March/April 2007 and he had been prescribing
medicines for Psyshatric illness to the respondent. Dr. Saurabh Kumar in
his note, which is available at page 128 of the Tribunal record, though
denied by the workman, the said note contains the stand of Dr. Saurabh
Kumar that he did not actually see the patient and someone came with
prescription of medicines and he (Dr. Saurabh Kumar) asked him continue
medicines but he himself never saw patient on 09.03.2007 and 14.03.2007
also.
15. The treatment papers as are also available on record to indicate that
on 10.02.2007 and on another occasion there is note made by the Doctor
that the attendant should come with patient but on one occasion there is no
such note and in every treatment date the doctor has prescribed the
medicines for psychiatric illness. Therefore, it is clear that doctor was
prima facie satisfied that the patient is suffering with psychiatric illness
otherwise, the treating doctor would not have prescribed medicines for
psychiatric illness. The treatment papers placed on record indicate that the
respondent-workman continued to get treated upto the year 2011 atleast and
he had been prescribed psychiatric medicines till the year 2011 because
upto this period the treatment record is available in Tribunal record.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has not at all erred in
holding that the respondent-workman was not in a position to rejoin duties
looking to his long mental ill-health. It was a fit case to convert dismissal
into discharge.
16. This Court has also gone through the findings of the enquiry officer
and the findings of the enquiry officer show utter lack of sympathy and
empathy towards the mental illness because the enquiry officer has only
taken note of one line that the petitioner did not report to Dr. Saurabh
Kumar on 07.09.2007. However, despite the treatment papers up to the year
2011 being on record before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer has
willfully not taken those documents in consideration and simply by writing
that earlier along with penalty of reversion respondent was directed to
report back on duty but he failed to report back on duty and therefore, it is
to be inferred that he is not interested to remain in service.
17. Though it is undisputed that the Tribunal as well as this Court
were/are sitting in judicial review but the Courts cannot close their eyes
upon such utterly cryptic, non-speaking and oppressive enquiry report
which has been prepared only to penalize the respondent in one manner or
the other. It was a case of no evidence at all where the management did not
have any evidence that the workman was absenting without any just and
reasonable cause. The workman has taken treatment for psychiatric illness
in the hospital run by the employer himself for as long as 8 years and the
employer cannot wriggle out of the said treatment of the workman and
infact it was a case where the employer should have risen up to the
occasion and either granted compulsory retirement or respectable discharge
to the workman looking to the long years of service put in by the workman
from 1980 to 2003 from the date he developed mental illness but the
employer decided to dismiss him from services in the year 2011 just 5
years prior to his superannuation having no regard to the long services put
in by the respondent with the petitioner company. The findings of the
enquiry officer had not considered in a single word, the continued mental
illness of respondent-workman till the year 2011 for which the documents
are duly available on record. For ready reference, the findings are
reproduced as under:-
"Findings/Conclusions:-
Shri Nagendre Singh the accused worker had been dirccted vide
letter No. 2193 dt.7/8.09.2007 to report to Dr.Saurabh Kumar,
NSC but he did not. Dr. S. Kumar has confirmed that Shri|
Nagendre Singh had never reported to him.
Shri Nagendre Singh had in his statement stated that he was
undergoing medical treatment and on getting fitness he will join
duty. But medical card shows that he has not visited the
concerned doctors in person. Only repetitions of medicines was
recorded in his medical card.
Shri Nagendre Singh deliberately avoided visiting the doctor. He
did not follow the orders/direction of the management to report
to Dr. Saurabh Kumar.
2) The copy of attendence register and attendence statement
clearly shows that Shri Nagendre Singh has been continuously
absenting from duty.
He was hence habitual in absenting.
3) Vide letter No.1482 dt.17.08.06. No1478 dt.11.7.07 and letter
No.1034 dt.08.07.08, he was directed to join duty but Shri
Nagendre Singh did not do so and continued to remain absent.
Inspite of being allowed /given a chance to join duty he
continued to remain absent. It appears that he is not interested to
remain in service .
Based on the above, the charges/allegations of misconduct under
clauses 26.22, 26.24 and 26.30 of certified Standing Orders
against Shri Nagendra Singh, is proved beyond doubt."
18. What is even more astounding that the charge sheet was issued in the
year 2009 and only on account of failure of the respondent-workman to
report to Dr. Saurabh Kumar sometime in September, 2007, he has been
held to be guilty of abandonment of service, habitual absenteeism and what
not, just to justify his dismissal. It is true that the scope of judicial review
of the Tribunal under the I.D. Act 1947, and of this Court in exercise of
judicial review is very limited. However, in fit cases where there is infact
no evidence available against the workman i.e. in cases of no evidence the
Courts and Tribunals have to step in to do justice between the parties and to
save the workman from oppressive practices of the employers. This was
one of the fit cases to do so in order to do justice with the respondent-
workman, though the Tribunal should not act as Court of appeal. In CISF
Vs. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 2023 (19) SCC 301, it was held as under :-
21. We have reservations regarding the reasoning given in
para 10 of the impugned judgment [Santosh Kumar
Pandey v. CISF, 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 15237] as it fails to
take notice and properly apply the law of judicial review.
Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on
merits, and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence, unless the
court finds that the findings recorded are based on no
evidence, perverse or are legally untenable in the sense that
it fails to pass the muster of the Wednesbury [Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948)
1 KB 223 (CA)] principles [ See SCC para 14
in CISF v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S)
310.] . Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India enables exercise of judicial review to
correct errors of law, including procedural law, leading to
manifest injustice or violation of principles of fairness, without
normally venturing into reappreciation of evidence [ See SCC
paras 12-16 in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2
SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554.].
(Emphasis supplied)
19. In Union of India & others vs. P. Gunasekaran [2015 (2) SCC 610],
while noting that it was disturbing for the High Court to re-appreciate
evidence adduced in Departmental proceedings like Appellate Court, it has
been held as under :-
12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to
note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in
the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence
before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted
by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into
reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see
whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed
in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a
fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the
evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit
the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Therefore, this Court does not find any just reason to interfere in the
well reasoned and justified award passed by the Tribunal, as the case was a
case of "no evidence".
21. At this stage, one apprehension is expressed by learned counsel for
the petitioner, and that is being taken note of. It was stated that the date
from which discharge has to take place is not clear. This Court clarifies that
discharge would be inferred from the date on which penalty of dismissal
was imposed on the respondent, i.e. 13.07.2011. The workman would be
entitled to all consequential benefits that fall upon discharge of an
employee as per rules and regulations of petitioner Company.
22. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
