1. Employee dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry for unauthorized absence. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. MAJMUDAR AND JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.
Syed Zaheer Hussain, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 6074 with 6075 of 1998 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14573 with 21651of 1977), D/- 4-12-1998.
Important Points
The court has the authority to substitute a harsh punishment with a lesser one, such as reinstatement with a monetary loss, to meet the ends of justice.
Subject
Employment Law - Dismissal and Reinstatement
Headnote
Dismissal from Service - Unauthorised Absence - Punishment - Reinstatement with Monetary Loss - [DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE] - [UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE] - The court found the punishment of dismissal from service to be too harsh and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity and benefits, except for withdrawing 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal. The court considered this punishment to be a sufficient corrective measure for the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sorting Assistant, was dismissed from service due to alleged unauthorised absence. The Tribunal found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate but could not interfere.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the punishment of dismissal to be too harsh and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity and benefits, except for withdrawing 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal. The court also granted eight weeks for compliance with the order and allowed both appeals.
Issues: Unauthorised absence leading to dismissal, proportionality of punishment, reinstatement with benefits and monetary loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The punishment of dismissal from service was found to be too harsh and was substituted by reinstatement with a monetary loss of 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal.
Final Decision: The court allowed both appeals, set aside the orders of the Tribunal, and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with continuity and benefits, except for withdrawing 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
disciplinary proceedings
- proportionality of punishment (Para 4)
-
disciplinary proceedings
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal for a short period of unauthorized absence is disproportionate. (Para 3 )
3. The punishment of dismissal for the alleged unauthorized absence is excessively harsh and warrants substitution with a lesser penalty. (Para 4 )
4. A punishment of dismissal is disproportionate if the underlying misconduct is minor, necessitating substitution with a corrective lesser penalty to meet the ends of justice. (Para 4 )
5. Dismissal set aside; employee reinstated with continuity and benefits, subject to a fifty per cent deduction in back wages. (Para 4 )
6. Can a court substitute a disproportionate punishment with a lesser one?
Yes, if the punishment of dismissal is found to be too harsh given the facts and circumstances, the court can set it aside and substitute it with an appropriate lesser punishment to ensure the ends of justice are served. (Para 4 )
7. How can a court balance the need for a corrective measure with the avoidance of an excessively harsh penalty?
The court may order reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits while imposing a substantial monetary loss, such as withdrawing a portion of back wages, to serve as a sufficient corrective measure. (Para 4 )
8. Is the withholding of future increments always justified as a corrective measure?
Not necessarily; the court may find that other monetary losses, such as the withdrawal of back wages, are sufficient to meet the ends of justice, making the withholding of future increments unjustified based on the peculiar facts of the case. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. By consent of learned counsel for both parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3. The short question is whether the appellant who was working as Sorting Assistant under the Respondents organisation could have been dismissed from service only because he was alleged to be unauthorisedly absent from 9-1-1985 to 15-1-1985. When he tried to resume his duties thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 16-1-1985 and after a departmental enquiry, was dismissed from service. He went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the punishment meted out to the appellant was grossly disproportionate but could not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction. That is how the appellant is before us on grant of special leave.
4. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and on the contrary it is required to be substituted by appropriate lesser punishment. Learned counsel for the respondents after instructions has stated that appropriate lesser punishment may be awarded by this Court. It will be acceptable to the respondents. In our view, ends of justice will be served if we set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and instead direct reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity and with all other benefits save 3368 and except withdrawing 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 11-10-1988 till today. In our view, this punishment which will involve substantial monetary loss to the appellant will meet the ends of justice and will be a sufficient corrective measure for the appellant. The request of learned counsel for the respondents that two future increments may also be withheld without cumulative effect does not appear to us to be justified on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In our view, the aforesaid monetary loss to the appellant will meet the ends of justice so that he may be careful in future. It is ordered accordingly. At the request of learned counsel for the respondents eight weeks time is granted to the respondents to comply with the present order and to reinstate the appellant with continuity in service and with all other benefits. We make it clear that from today onwards the appellant will be entitled to full salary. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly. The orders of the Tribunal dated 4-11-1996 and 13-2-1997 are set aside. O. A. No. 714 of 1993 filed by the appellant in the Tribunal shall stand allowed in aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Order accordingly.
