1. Employee dismissed for misconduct involving unauthorized attendance of a seminar and receiving hospitality from a tender bidder — Challenge to dismissal and forfeiture of retirement benefits. (Para 2 , 9 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 793
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Rathin Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5633 of 2019 (@ SLP(Civil) No.31374 of 2017)
Decided on : 29-07-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disciplinary authority has exclusive power to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view magnitude and gravity of misconduct.
(2) Dismissal from service is a very drastic punishment.
(1) Disciplinary authority has exclusive power to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view magnitude and gravity of misconduct.
(2) Dismissal from service is a very drastic punishment.
Subject
Disciplinary Proceedings - Dismissal from Service
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT REGULATIONS: Reg.11(a)
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS: Reg.61, Reg.62, Reg.63
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT REGULATIONS: Reg.11(a)
WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS: Reg.61, Reg.62, Reg.63
Headnote
(A) Service Law – Punishment – Scope of Judicial Review – Disciplinary authority has exclusive power to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view magnitude and gravity of misconduct – Punishment to be imposed on a delinquent employee has to be proportionate to charge and in event punishment is disproportionate, delinquent has to be held to be given discriminatory treatment violating Article 14 – High Court and this Court can interfere with punishment imposed by disciplinary authority when it shocks conscience of Court. (Para 20)
(B) Service Law – Dismissal – Allegation of misconduct – Permanent withholding of pension for life time and forfeiture of entire gratuity – Appellant attended presentation at New Delhi with prior information to his superior officer and also shown his invitation – Invitation was not any official invitation but was in personal name of appellant – Even if it is assumed that appellant was required to obtain prior written permission from Company to go to attend meeting, he having informed his superior officer in advance before going to attend the presentation, charge of any such misconduct is not made out which may warrant extreme punishment of dismissal – It was appellant who made payment for journey from Delhi-Calcutta and Calcutta-Delhi – Conclusion of Inquiry Officer in this regard is perverse and not supported by material on record – Punishment is so disproportionate to the charge that it clearly shocks conscience of Court – Charges which were held to be proved were not any such charges on which punishment of dismissal could have been imposed – Regulation 62 does not contain any punishment of permanent withholding of pension for life time or forfeiture of gratuity – Power to withhold the pension has to be exercised when proceedings are drawn under Regulations, 1985 – Appellant having never retired from service nor was a pensioner, there was no occasion for exercising of power under Regulation 11A of Regulations, 1985 – Imposition of punishment of withholding of pension while in proceeding under WBSEBES Regulations are illegal and without jurisdiction – Judgment of Single Judge to the extent it has set aside dismissal order, upheld – Ends of justice be served in allowing this appeal setting aside dismissal order by directing that resignation letter of appellant be treated as voluntary retirement with further direction to treat appellant as voluntarily retired on that date and to compute and pay to appellant all benefits accruing to appellant including gratuity and pension as admissible on that date. [Regulations 61, 62 and 63 of WBSEB Employees’ Service Regulations; West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’ (Death-Cum- Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1985 – Regulation 11A] (Paras 15, 16, 20, 23, 25 and 26)
Facts of the Case:
Dismissal from service. Appellant was suspended alleging gross misconduct tarnishing image of Company. Respondent aggrieved by judgment of Single Judge has filed the appeal before Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. Division Bench by its judgment allowed appeal and set aside judgment of Single Judge. Aggrieved by judgment of Division Bench, this appeal has been filed by appellant.
Findings of the Court:
Present is a case where disciplinary authority has drawn proceeding against appellant under West Bengal State Electricity Board Employees’ Service Regulations and not any proceeding is drawn under Regulations, 1985. Imposition of punishment of withholding of pension while in proceeding under WBSEBES Regulations are illegal and without jurisdiction. Order passed by disciplinary authority suffered from jurisdictional error.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shyam Divan, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Udayaditya Banerjee, Parul Shukla, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Saurabh Mishra, Advocate
For the Appellant :Shyam Divan, Swarnendu Chatterjee, Udayaditya Banerjee, Parul Shukla, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Saurabh Mishra, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims no misconduct and disproportionate punishment; Respondent contends charges were proved and the company lost confidence in the employee. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. The court found no evidence of pecuniary benefit, noted the employee's lack of influence in tender selection, and deemed the punishment disproportionate and jurisdictionally flawed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Punishment must be proportionate to the misconduct; penalties imposed without statutory or regulatory authority are jurisdictionally void and violate Article 14. (Para 19 , 20 , 25 )
5. Dismissal order set aside — Resignation treated as voluntary retirement with direction to pay all admissible retirement benefits. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. When can courts interfere with the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority?
While disciplinary authorities have exclusive power to determine penalties, courts can interfere when the punishment is so disproportionate to the charge that it shocks the conscience of the court, as such treatment violates Article 14. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. Can a disciplinary authority forfeit pension and gratuity if the governing service regulations do not explicitly provide for such penalties?
No. Imposing punishments such as the permanent withholding of pension or forfeiture of gratuity without specific regulatory authority constitutes a jurisdictional error and is illegal. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 )
8. Can regulations governing the withholding of a pensioner's pension be applied to an employee who has not yet retired?
No. Powers to withhold pension under regulations intended for pensioners cannot be exercised against an employee who has not retired, as the power is specifically intended for use qua a pensioner. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 20.09.2017 allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent has filed appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court questioning the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.2712(W) of 2010 - Rathin Ghosh vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, whereby the writ petition was allowed setting aside the dismissal order of the appellant with all consequential benefits.
2. The appellant was appointed as Graduate Engineer (Training) in the year 1985 in the West Bengal State Electricity Board, which subsequently was restructured and reorganized to form the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Company’). The appellant on account of his work and conduct was promoted to different posts and in the year 2007, he was holding the post of Superintending Engineer. In February, 2007 he was asked to prepare a draft specification of single-phase static meters. The draft specification submitted by the appellant was approved by the competent authority, which technical specifications were to be provided to all bidders and was an open document. Tender No.P-2/2007-08/(P-II) was published for purchase of 20 lakh meters which tender was cancelled for technical reasons. Fresh specifications drafted by Advisor (Security and Vigilance) and settled by Additional Chief Engineer (District Testing) was approved by all Technical Directors of the Board of Directors and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The Tender No.P-28/2007-08 was issued by the Company for procurement of 10 lakh meters on 09.01.2008. Nineteen bids along with their respective sample meters were received by the Company on 08.02.2008. The samples of the meters were sent to the Additional Chief Engineer (Testing) for evaluation. On 13.03.2008 the said meters were tested by a team of officers and technicians which included the appellant. On 26.03.2008, the appellant received the personal invitation from an organization IEEMA to attend a presentation organised in New Delhi. On testing of sample meters by the team of officers, only four bidders were found technically qualified which also included one bidder-M/s. Secure Meters. The Chairman of the Company on 31.03.2008 approved the opening of the price bids of the three technically suitable bidders, bids were opened and M/s. Secure Meters was declared the successful bidder to the highest rate. Other two bidders were also successful bidders having offered rates lower than M/s. Secure Meters. On 16.04.2008, the appellant informed his immediate superior Officer, Additional Chief Engineer (Distt. Testing) about his going to New Delhi to attend IEEMA’s Conference. The appellant got his Air Tickets booked from Globe Travel Agents, who were the travel agents of M/s. Secure Meters for to and fro visit to Delhi. On 17.04.2008, the appellant attended the IEEMA Conference at New Delhi and returned on 17.04.2008 to Calcutta itself. On 18.04.2008, the Globe Travel Agency raised an invoice of Rs. 12,350/-for the return air ticket of the appellant upon M/s. Secure Meters as the booking was done through them. On 24.04.2008, on an enquiry by the Corporate Vigilance Department of the Company to Globe Travel Agency about the appellant’s ticket, which informed that the payment towards the aforesaid invoice was still due. On 28.04.2008, the appellant paid the entire amount of Rs.12,350/-to M/s. Secure Meters for payment of the aforesaid invoice raised by Globe Travel Agency. On 29.04.2008, the respondent- Company suspended the appellant and initiated disciplinary proceedings. The appellant was suspended alleging gross misconduct tarnishing the image of the Company.
3. The appellant, who had 22 years unblemished service to his credit, felt hurt by the act of the Company suspending him. The appellant on 13.05.2008 submitted his resignation to the
