STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. versus GANESH CHANDRA SAHOO

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 10-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.
v.
GANESH CHANDRA SAHOO
(Civil Appeal No. 9514 of 2019)
JANUARY 10, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law:
Discharge from service – Pursuant to departmental
proceedings on the charge of overstay of leave for about 7 years –
Non-participation in the proceedings, despite repeated
communication from the Department – Delinquent produced medical
Certificate as to his mental illness – Departmental appeal dismissed
– Application before Administrative Tribunal – Doubting the veracity
of the Medical Certificate, Tribunal rejected the case of the
delinquent – High Court on the basis of Medical Certificate,
substituted the punishment of ‘Discharge’ to ‘Compulsory Retirement’
– Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The delinquent remaining away
from duty since 1991-1998 without producing contemporaneous
medical record has not only been irresponsible and indisciplined ,
but tried to get away with, by producing medical certificate of
Specialist Doctor – Tribunal, in the facts of the case, rightly doubted
to veracity of the Medical Certificate – High Court should not have
invoked the self-serving medical certificate, overlooking the gravity
of misconduct – Orissa Code – r .72.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court failed to notice that the
respondent did not present himself for the official verification of
his medical status by the CDMO and thereby prevented
confirmation of his pleaded medical condition. In this manner,
the respondent not only defied the Commandant’s direction but
remained absent without authorization, for about seven years.
Later, he tried to justify his long absence without  producing any
contemporaneous medical records. [Para 15][762-D]
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 755
755
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
2. The primary basis for the High Court to have intervened
in favour of the respondent was the medical certificate issued by
then Professor & HoD of Psychiatric Department, SCB, Medical
College and Hospital, Cuttack. But the certifying Doctor does
not categorically mention that the respondent was under his
treatment since 1991. Most unusually, the certificate reflects that
on reference by the local MLA, the respondent reported before
the specialist Doctor on 21.1.1998. Therefore the respondent’s
was not a referral case by a Doctor, who might have been treating
the respondent during 1991 to 1998. [Para 16][762 E-H]
3. In granting relief to the respondent, the High Court
should have considered that the respondent was absent from duty
for seven long years and he was aware of the discharge order
passed against him on 30.12.1993. As regards the plea of mental
illness which might have incapacitated the respondent from either
reporting for duty or to participate in the disciplinary proceeding,
the Court should have borne in mind the failure of the respondent
to make himself available before the CDMO to crosscheck his
pleaded medical condition. This was in defiance of the repeated
communications addressed to the absentee-employee by the
Commandant of the Battalion. It is also of significance that neither
the Tribunal nor the High Court found any infirmity with the
disciplinary proceeding which led to the issuance of the discharge
order against the delinquent on 30.12.1993. [Para 17][763 A-C]
4. The respondent by remaining away from duty since 1991
to 1998 without producing contemporaneous medical record has
not only been irresponsible and indisciplined but tried to get away
with it by producing the certificate of a specialist Doctor who may
not have treated the respondent. Significantly, although the
respondent produced a certificate of a psychiatric specialist, he
never claimed that he received treatment from any psychiatric
Doctor. In such backdrop, the High Court should not have
invoked the self serving medical certificate. The doctrine of
proportionality is not attracted in the present facts. [Para 20][764
A-C]
5. Under Rule 72 of the Orissa Code which deals with leave
for Government servant remaining absent for over five years.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
Under Rule 72, no leave of any kind is admissible for period
exceeding five years unless the Government determines the case
to be one of exceptional circumstances. The situation in the
present case is not one of exceptional circumstances. In fact the
veracity of the self-serving medical certificate to justify the seven
years absence, was correctly doubted by the Tribunal.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.