S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH I agree with the opinion of my esteemed brother V. V. S. RAO, J. , I would like to add a few words of mine.

( 2 ) THE learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis, presumably having regard to the decisions in A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment corporation of India Ltd. , AIR 1984 SC 1361 : 1984 (3) SCC 316 : 1984-II-LLJ-186 and glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. v. Presiding officer, Labour Court, AIR 1984 SC 505 : 1984 (1) SCC 1 :1984-I-LLJ-16. But, one of us - S. B. SINHA CJ.- had the occasion to consider the same in some depth in Probodh kumar Bhowmick v. University of Calcutta, 1994 (2) Cal LJ 456 and distinguished A. L. Kalra and Glaxo Laboratories cases (supra) stating that they "could not be treated as precedence on the point that the employer in no circumstances can proceed against its employees in absence of Rule defining and/or specifying misconduct. " It was held:"it is beyond anybody s comprehension that although an employee might have committed a serious misconduct like defalcation, theft, misbehaviour with a lady or similar other matter, he cannot be punished. Recently this Court has come across a case when a Reader of the university has been punished for sexually exploiting a lady research student. Misconduct is a generic term of which the instances of misconduct as may be specified by the employer are their species. . . . . Misconduct, inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. "

( 3 ) SAMARADITYA PAL in his Book "law relating TO PUBLIC SERVICE", noticed a contrary decision of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Abdulla Latifshah v. Bombay Port Trust, 1992-I-LLJ-226 and at page 717 of the treatise, it was observed: "in view of SINHA, J. of the Calcutta High court discloses a pragmatic approach based on robust commonsense and is to be preferred to the Bombay view. The Calcutta view also finds support in principle from a subsequent three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court (B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 : 1995 (6) scc 749 : 1996-I-LLJ-1231 where the possession of disproportionate assets, not satisfactorily accounted for, was held to amount to a misconduct amenable to disciplinary action although it was not an enumerated misconduct under the conduct rules. And more recently, relying upon the phrase "for good and sufficient reason" which often occurs in the Rules, the Supreme court has held in Secretary to Government v. A. C. J. Britto, AIR 1997 SC 1393 : 1997 (3) scc 387 that non- specified conduct may also amount to misconduct, i. e. , the misconduct need not be enumerated in the Rules. "

( 4 ) INTEMPERATE language used in reply to a charge-sheet may also amount to misconduct syed Khader Mohinuddin v. Chairman, Tamil nadu PSC, 1997-II-LLJ-111 (Mad ).

( 5 ) MISCONDUCT may be committed outside the place of work e. g. where a bank employee having consumed liquor was in a state of undress and created an ugly scene in public. Thirumangalam Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Madura, 1992-II-LLJ-886. But mere passive participation in an illegal strike will amount to misconduct. Changunabai Chanoo Palkar v. Khatau Makanji Mills Limited, 1992-II-LLJ-640 (Bom-DB ).

( 6 ) IN State Bank of India v. T. J. Paul, AIR 1999 SC 1994 : 1999 (4) SCC 759 : 1999-II-LLJ-514, the Apex Court held that an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank would include an act, which is likely to cause loss e. g. improper and unauthorized sanction of loan, although no loss has actually been suffered.

( 7 ) IN Government of A. P. v. P. Posetty, 2000 (2) SCC 220, it has been held that allegations of illegal detention of certain persons in police custody, their torture etc. by police officer for cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document