Back
SAIL Technician's Fence Sparks Disciplinary Fire: Calcutta HC Trims Punishment for Land Grab
In a nuanced ruling, the has upheld a misconduct finding against a employee for erecting unauthorized structures on company land but slashed the harsher edge of his punishment. Justices Sujoy Paul (Chief Justice) and Partha Sarathi Sen partly allowed writ petition WP.CT 20 of 2022 filed by Deb Nath Swarnakar, a retired Senior Technician, directing SAIL to recalculate his pay arrears and retiral benefits without the invalid "" penalty.
From Lease to Lesion: The Quarrel Over Quarters
The saga began in when Swarnakar and his wife leased two SAIL quarters (12T and 12S, each 328 sq.ft. plinth on 988 sq.ft. land) under the . The scheme allowed appurtenant land beyond 1.5 times plinth area for horticulture, but not encroachments.
By
, SAIL spotted Swarnakar's brick wall and fencing encroaching 4,620 sq.ft. of company land without permission. Despite letters (
,
,
) urging removal, a show-cause notice (
), and his replies claiming verbal approvals, SAIL issued a charge-sheet (
) under
:
"Unauthorized use of company’s quarters or lands."
An enquiry officer (report ) proved the charge. Disciplinary authority imposed reduction of basic pay by one stage (Rs.19,216 to Rs.18,705) with (). Appeals and review failed, as did his OA before the (order ), leading to the writ.
Petitioner's Fence of Defense vs. SAIL's Iron Wall
Swarnakar's counsel, , argued the lease permitted horticultural use of appurtenant land, negating "unauthorized use." He claimed any breach warranted eviction under the , not discipline—citing Nandita B. Palekar v. Y.S. Kasbekar (1985 Mh.L.J. 405), where housing breaches weren't misconduct absent specific rules. He assailed the Tribunal for conflating "encroachment of common area" () with the charge, and deemed the punishment unlinked to service duties.
SAIL's countered that photos and admissions showed beyond-permissible fencing and pucca structures, fitting misconduct under Clause 29(xix). He distinguished Palekar (no specific rule there) since SAIL's Standing Orders explicitly covered it. All authorities followed ; punishment wasn't disproportionate under .
Parsing Precedents: Misconduct Yes, But Penalty Precision Matters
The bench dissected the SAIL Scheme and lease deeds, confirming excess use beyond horticulture. It rejected Palekar 's applicability, as Clause 29(xix) squarely made unauthorized land use misconduct—unlike the housing scheme there open to non-employees.
On punishment, citing Union of India v. P. Balasubrahmanayam ((2021) 5 SCC 662) and S.R. Tewari v. Union of India ((2013) 6 SCC 602), courts can check if "." lists "" as major penalty but omits "."
Drawing from Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. ((2012) 5 SCC 242)—punishments must match rules—and Punjab State Electricity Board v. Raj Kumar Goel (AIR 2015 SC 533), where permanently setbacks pay progression, the court held it unauthorized. Echoing a recent view in Ravindra Kumar Rajnegi , only statutorily prescribed penalties bind.
Court's Sharp Scalpel: Key Observations
The judgment gleams with incisive quotes:
"On careful perusal of Clause 29(xix) of the said standing order it further appears that the alleged action of the delinquent very much comes under the purview of act of misconduct."(Para 22)
"It is a settled proposition of law that punishment not prescribed under the Rules as a result of disciplinary proceedings cannot be awarded."(Para 28, quoting Vijay Singh )
"[T]he effect of with is that the employee is reduced in his time scale of pay for the period in question and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service."(Para 31, approving precedents)
"The disciplinary authority by its impugned order of punishment dated was not at all justified in imposing... with ' ' in absence of any provision in Clause 30."(Para 33)
Relief with Retrospect: Arrears and a Precedent
The writ succeeded partly: misconduct and one-stage pay cut upheld, but "" quashed. SAIL must pay arrears and retiral dues with 3% simple interest from superannuation within 180 days—a preemptive timeline.
This tempers employer disciplinary leeway, mandating rule-bound penalties, potentially aiding employees challenging unlisted punishment add-ons. As one report noted, the court indeed upheld the misconduct core amid SAIL's land-use tussle, but precision prevailed.
