2004 (4) TMI 591 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is a relation between the State and the alleged holder of the post? Whether disciplinary proceedings against R-1 regarding her unauthorized absence from duty?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's decision regarding the opportunity of hearing under Article 311.
2. Applicability of Article 311 to employees of PGIMER.
3. Validity of PGIMER's action deeming the 1st Respondent to have permanently left the institute.
4. The High Court's stay on disciplinary action against the 1st Respondent.
5. Continuation of the 1st Respondent in service during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the High Court's Decision Regarding the Opportunity of Hearing Under Article 311:
The High Court relied on previous judgments (Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, State of Assam v. Akshaya Kumar, Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, and Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan) to conclude that the 1st Respondent was not given an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating Article 311. The High Court permitted the 1st Respondent to rejoin duty, emphasizing the necessity of an opportunity to defend oneself before termination.

2. Applicability of Article 311 to Employees of PGIMER:
The Supreme Court examined whether Article 311, which provides safeguards to civil servants, applies to employees of PGIMER. It was determined that PGIMER, being a separate legal entity and a 'body corporate' under The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966, does not constitute a 'State' for the purpose of Article 311. Consequently, employees of PGIMER do not hold 'civil posts' under the State and cannot claim the protections of Article 311.

3. Validity of PGIMER's Action Deeming the 1st Respondent to Have Permanently Left the Institute:
The Supreme Court referenced similar cases (Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan and Dr. Anil Bajaj v. PGIMER) where employees who overstayed their sanctioned leave were deemed to have vacated their posts. The Court held that the 1st Respondent was aware of the condition that failure to resume duty after the leave period would result in automatic termination. Thus, PGIMER's action was justified, and the absence of a formal notice did not prejudice the 1st Respondent.

4. The High Court's Stay on Disciplinary Action Against the 1st Respondent:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted a stay on disciplinary action against the 1st Respondent in CWP No. 16212 of 1992. The Supreme Court found that this stay was improperly granted as it was unrelated to the disciplinary proceedings concerning the unauthorized absence. Consequently, the stay was vacated, allowing PGIMER to proceed with the disciplinary action.

5. Continuation of the 1st Respondent in Service During the Pendency of the Disciplinary Enquiry:
The Supreme Court allowed the 1st Respondent to continue in service during the disciplinary enquiry, subject to its outcome. PGIMER was directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously. Additionally, PGIMER was given the liberty to consider suspending the 1st Respondent during the enquiry and to appoint another individual in her place if deemed necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, vacated the stay on disciplinary action, and directed PGIMER to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry against the 1st Respondent. The decision of the High Court was overturned, and it was clarified that Article 311 does not apply to PGIMER employees. The 1st Respondent's continuation in service was made conditional upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

← Previous Next →