Back
2009(6) Supreme 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. — Appellants
versus
Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5762-5763 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 776-777/2009)
Decided on : 24-08-2009
Doctrine of proportionality – Doctrine of proportionality is, well recognized concept of judicial review in jurisprudence – What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault – Award of punishment which is grossly in access to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. (Para 26)
Quantum of punishment-Determination of – One of the tests to be applied while dealing with question of quantum of punishment would be : would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. (Para 26)
Facts of the Case :
1. Respondent1 a system officer with North-Eastern Coalfields,Assam was removed from service for misconduct on his part by absenting himself without leave and for overstaying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days. Writ petition thereagainst was Allowed by Single Judge of High Court, setting aside impugned orders directing the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1. Single Judge, however, did not award back wages.On appeals thereagainst , High Court affirmed order of Single Judge insofar as reinstatement of Respondent1 was concerned but modified the order of Single Judge by awarding him back wages.
2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Instantly misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s Rules and Regulations .Respondent stated that reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted. Order of removal could not be held to be justified, since, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment was not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations. Held demand of justice would be met if Respondent. 1 was denied back wages for the entire period by way of punishment for the proved misconduct of unauthorized absence for six months.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses proportionality in disciplinary action and when courts may intervene in the punishment imposed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It addresses the scope of judicial review of departmental inquiries, including when the court may substitute its own view on punishment and when it should remand (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It holds that denial of back wages can meet justice in cases of proven misconduct with disproportionate punishment, and discusses reinstatement with or without back wages (!) (!) (!) . - It presents the principle that a reasonable employer will consider magnitude of misconduct and relevant circumstances before punishing (!) . - It provides findings on the specific case: removal for six months unauthorized absence; appellate relief denying back wages and later reinstatement without back wages (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It outlines procedural requirements and fairness concerns in issuing disciplinary orders and the need to serve the actual order and reasons (!) (!) .
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Calcutta on September 22, 2008 whereby the Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge passed on July 26, 2007 insofar as reinstatement of the Respondent No. 1 was concerned but modified the order of the Single Judge by awarding him back wages.
3. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, Respondent No. 1, joined his service with the Eastern Coalfields in 1992 as System Officer. In 1996, he was transferred to North-Eastern Coalfields, Assam. On September 16, 1998, the Respondent No. 1 proceeded on sanctioned leave upto September 29, 1998. However, after expiry of his sanctioned leave, he did not report to duty and despite reminders remained absent for six months without any authorization.
4. On March 18, 1999, the Director-in-Charge, North-Eastern Coalfields initiated disciplinary enquiry against the Respondent No. 1 under Rule 29 of the Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 (for short, ‘Conduct Rules, 1978) for misconduct on his part by -(i) absenting himself without leave; (ii) Overstaying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days; and (iii) Desertion of job and failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.
5. On May 31, 1999, the Respondent No. 1 sent letter of resignation. His resignation was, however, not accepted by the Management and, accordingly, he joined his duty on September 10, 1999.
6. In the enquiry proceedings, the Respondent No. 1 appeared before the Inquiry Officer and admitted the charges leveled against him. The Inquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and vide his report dated October 5, 1999 held that the delinquent was guilty of the charges as mentioned in the charge-sheet.
7. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, a second show cause notice dated December 10, 1999 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 indicating therein that in view of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, termination of his services was proposed. The delinquent was asked to show cause as to why the punishment of termination of service be not awarded to him. A copy of the enquiry report was sent along with the second show cause notice.
8. The Respondent No. 1 responded to the second show cause notice. He submitted that he sincerely wanted to leave the Company for several personal problems but these were aggravated by unsympathetic attitude of the Management in not accepting his resignation. He submitted that he deserved no punishment and that his explanation be considered favourably.
9. By an Office Order dated November 29, 2000, the Respondent No. 1 was removed from service with immediate effect. The Respondent No. 1 pursued the departmental remedy but without any success. He also approached Calcutta High Court on more than one occasion raising grievance of non-consideration of the departmental appeal and the review application before Reviewing Authority and the departmental authorities not passing the reasoned order. It is not necessary to refer to these proceedings in details. Suffice it to say that as directed by the High Court, he challenged the order of removal before the Board of Directors which came to be dismissed on August 17, 2006. Then, he again approached the High Court by filing writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2006.
10. The Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment delivered on July 26, 2007 allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and directed the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1. The Single Judge, however, did not award back wages to the Respondent No. 1 but declared that he be treated to be in continuous service without any break and without affecting his seniority.
11. The order of the Single Judge was challenged in separate appeals by both parties before the Division Bench. The appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed while the appeal preferred by the Respond
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
