Case: C.V.Francis Vs. Union Of India

1. The Petitioner, who has appeared in person, was employed as a Manager by the Respondent, Bokaro Steel Limited, which subsequently became a unit of Steel Authority of India (SAIL) from 20.2.1998. On the same date a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced and the Petitioner also applied on 7.4.1998 to avail the benefits of the Scheme. The Petitioner claims to have applied for leave from 30.4.1998 to 31.5.1998 which was purported to have been sanctioned.2. However, without waiting for acceptance of his application seeking voluntary retirement, the Petitioner proceeded to the United States and applied for further leave from 1.6.1998 to 30.6.1998. Such prayer was rejected and the Petitioner was asked by letter dated 26.6.1998 to join his duties from 1.7.1998. The Petitioner did not join his duties, as directed, but again applied for leave from 1.7.1998 to 31.8.1998. By its letter dated 3.8.1998, the Respondent Company informed the Petitioner that leave had not been granted and that he was being treated as absent from duty without leave, for which disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated against him for unauthorised absence. In the absence of any response from him, the Respondent Company once again wrote to the Petitioner on 14.8.1998, asking him to report for duty within ten days, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him, but the Petitioner failed to respond even to the said letter. On 11.10.1998, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner for his unauthorised absence from duty.3. Without replying to the charges against him, the Petitioner sent yet another representation dated 20.11.1998 to the Respondent Company to accept his request for voluntary retirement. As such prayer was rejected, the Petitioner moved the Kerala High Court in its writ jurisdiction for a direction upon the authorities to accept his prayer for voluntary retirement and to drop the disciplinary action initiated against him. The Kerala High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on the same day and by its Order dated 23.4.1999 directed the Union of India to dispose of the Petitioners representation within a reasonable time. It was made clear that whatever action was taken would be subject to the order to be passed on the Petitioners representation. The Petitioner was given ample opportunity to represent his case by the Respondent Union of India, which vide Order dated 11.10.1999, rejected the Petitioners representation. Since, thereafter, on 29.12.1999, the Petitioner was found guilty in the departmental proceedings, his services were terminated.4. The said Order was challenged by the Petitioner in the Kerala High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 26659 of 2009, which was, however, rejected on the ground that the Kerala High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court by way of Writ Petition (S) No. 4057 of 2004.5. The Writ Petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Division Bench in which Petitioners counsel strongly urged that his application for voluntary retirement be accepted. He also added a new dimension to his submissions that since there was no response from the side of the Respondent, his application for voluntary retirement must be deemed to have been accepted. Accordingly, the subsequent proceedings taken by way of disciplinary proceedings and the order of termination of services passed therein, must be held to be entirely invalid.

Reasoning: we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and Order of learned Single Judge, as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, rejecting the Petitioners prayer challenging the termination of his services. It may be noted that notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition on 11.11.2011 only to consider whether the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner could be converted into an order of compulsory retirement. We have considered the matter from that angle and do not find any justification to modify the Order of either the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. As has been emphasised by the Division Bench of the High Court, it is obvious that the Petitioner having obtained employment in the United States of America, had no intention of rejoining his duties with the Respondent company. Instead of waiting for the notice period, the Petitioner moved to the United States, having obtained employment there and his letters praying for leave were of no consequence. Furthermore, instead of attending the disciplinary enquiry commenced against him, the Petitioner repeatedly requested the Respondent company to accept his application for voluntary retirement.13. It is well-established that a Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by a company, does not entitle an employee as a matter of right to the benefits of the Scheme.Whether an employee should be allowed to retire in terms of the Scheme is a decision which can only be taken by the employer company, except in cases where the Scheme itself provides for retirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end.A Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by a company is essentially a part of the companys desire to weed out thePetitioners contention that his application for voluntary retirement came into effect on the expiry of the period of notice given by him must fail, since there was no such stipulation in the scheme that even without acceptance of his application it would be deemed that the Petitioners voluntary retirement application had been accepted. Once that is not accepted, the entire case of the Petitioner falls to the ground. The decision in Tek Chands case (supra) will not, therefore, have any application to the facts of this case, particularly when the Petitioners application for voluntary retirement had not been accepted and he had been asked to rejoin his services. The Petitioner was fully aware of this position as he continued to apply for leave after the notice period was over.