1. Appeal by employer against High Court order setting aside disciplinary punishment of withholding increments imposed on an employee. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, JJ.
The State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Nachhattar Singh(dead) Thr. Lr. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7257 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 16535 of 2018)
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Important Points
The judgment established that non-supply of documents, without causing prejudice to the employee, cannot be the sole ground for setting aside a disciplinary authority's order. The Court also emphasized the need for proportionality in imposing punishments.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
Headnote
Disciplinary Authority - Employee Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100
Fact of the Case:
The management appealed the High Court's decision to set aside the punishment of withholding four increments imposed by the disciplinary authority on an employee.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable due to lack of evidence of prejudice caused to the employee by non-supply of documents. The punishment was modified to withholding of two increments due to the nature of the misconduct and the death of the employee.
Issues: The main issue was the setting aside of the punishment by the High Court based on non-supply of documents to the delinquent-employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that mere non-supply of documents, without resulting in prejudice to the employee, cannot be the sole ground for setting aside the disciplinary authority's order. The Court also considered the nature of the misconduct and the death of the employee in modifying the punishment.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and modified the punishment to withholding of two increments. The widow of the deceased employee was entitled to recalculated pension/retirement benefits and arrears within eight weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Advocate, Mr. Kanishak Bunderwal, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, Advocate, Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Advocate, Mr. Kanishak Bunderwal, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Employer challenges the High Court's decision to set aside the disciplinary authority's punishment based on the non-supply of certain documents. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Non-supply of documents does not justify setting aside a disciplinary order unless it is proven that such omission caused prejudice to the employee. (Para 4 )
4. A disciplinary order cannot be set aside for mere non-supply of documents if no prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee. (Para 4 )
5. High Court order quashed; punishment modified from withholding four increments to two increments; retirement benefits to be recalculated and paid. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does the non-supply of documents automatically invalidate a disciplinary authority's order?
No. An order passed by a disciplinary authority cannot be set aside solely on the ground of non-supply of documents unless it is found that such non-supply resulted in prejudice to the delinquent employee. (Para 4 )
7. Can a court modify a disciplinary punishment if it is found to be disproportionate?
Yes. The court may modify a punishment if it is deemed disproportionate to the proven misconduct, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 1992, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the employee and has set aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority withholding four increments, the management/employer has preferred the present appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considering the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is unsustainable.
4. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that some documents were not supplied to the delinquent. However, it is required to be noted that as such there is no finding that non- supply of some documents has resulted into any prejudice caused to the delinquent-employee. Mere non-supply of the documents which may not have resulted any prejudice caused to the employee, the order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be set aside.
5. However, at the same time, considering the nature of the misconduct and the fact that when the present appeal arising out of the special leave petition was filed, the employee has died and his legal heirs are brought on record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment of withholding of four increments can be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct proved. We are of the opinion that if instead of withholding of four increments, two increments are withheld, the same shall meet the ends of justice.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the disciplinary authority withholding four increments is modified and substituted by withholding of two increments. The Pension/retirement benefits which is/are being paid to the widow of the deceased be recalculated and the arrears be paid to her at the earliest, but not later than eight weeks from today.
7. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
