LexC.V. FRANCIS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 53 C.V. FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31250 of 2011) JULY 3, 2013 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, ANIL R. DAVE AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Service Law: Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Employee seeking benefit under- Without waiting for the acceptance thereof, went A - B c on leave and took employment elsewhere - His leave not extended - On his failure to join duty, disciplinary proceedings initiated for unauthorized absence from duty and his seniices 0 terminated - High Court upheld the termination - Held: Decision as regards grant of benefit under Voluntary Retirement Scheme is at the discretion of the employer, unless where the Scheme itself provides for the retirement to take effect at the end of notice period - In the instant case, E there was no such stipulation under the Scheme - The employee was rightly terminated. The petitioner applied to avail benefits under voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the r~spondent-Company. Without waiting for acceptance of F his application seeking voluntary retirement, he proceeded to the United States after availing leave for one month and obtained employment there. From there, he applied for further leave, which was rejected and was asked to join. Since he did not join his duties, Disciplinary G proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence from duty. At the instance of the petitioner, High Court directed to consider his representation seeking to accept his request of voluntary retirement and'to drop 53 H 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A disciplinary proceedings. His representatic.n was rejected by respondent-State, and finding him guilty in the Departmental Proceedings, his services were terminated. His writ petition, challenging the termination order, was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court and the order B was further confirmed by Division Bench of High Court in the writ appeal. In the instant special leave petition, the petitioner inter alia contended that his application for voluntary retirement must be deemed to have been accepted on the C expiry of notice period and thus disciplinary proceedings and termination order were invalid. Dismissing the petition, the Court 0 HELD: 1. 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 E 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 company's desire to weed out the deadwood. [Para 13) F [60-C-E] 2. In the instant case, there was no such stipulation in the scheme that even without acceptance of his application it would be deemed that the Petitioner's voluntary retirement application had been accepted. G Once that is not accepted, the entire case of the Petitioner falls to the ground. 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 H period, the Petitioner moved to the United States, having 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A 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 s 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 C 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 D enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner for his unauthorised absence from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.