IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for proportionality of punishment, the discretion of the employer in choosing the quantum of punishment, and the importance of maintaining integrity of legal reasoning and legitimacy of conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocate Mr. Pradeep S. Sawkar for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. K.B. Narayanswamy for the respondent.

2. The present writ appeal preferred by the appellant-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-original respondent No.1 under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.30380 of 2018, whereby learned Single Judge set aside the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner-delinquent. It was further provided that the respondents would not be entitled to enforce the terms of security contract and recover the sum of Rs.2,22,757/- and if the amount has already been recovered, it would be required to be refunded to the petitioner.

3. The facts in the background are inter alia that the petitioner, who was serving as an Engineer (Design-ELS) under the respondents, faced the departmental inquiry in respect of the charge of remaining unauthorisedly absent. The charge sheet indicated that the period of such absence was from 22.09.2016 till 06.01.2017. The petitioner sought to defend himself in the departmental proceedings by taking a stand that he made repeated requests for grant of leave as he was unwell and that due to his indisposed health, he could not report to the duty.

3.1 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer found the delinquent guilty of the charges and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was treated liable to pay Rs.2,22,757/- to the employer under the terms of service contract.

4. Learned advocate for the appellants, by referring to the findings of the inquiry officer, submitted that not only the absence was unauthorised, the medical certificates subsequently produced by the delinquent to support his leave were not believable and were misleading. It was further submitted that the absence on part of the delinquent continued till the order of punishment was passed against him.

4.1 It was also submitted that although the learned Single Judge took into account the punishment to be of dismissal, he failed to notice that the said punishment of dismissal was subsequently substituted with lesser penalty of simple removal in the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner. The order passed by the departmental appellate authority dated 01.09.2017 figures on record. The appellate authority has reduced the punishment imposed and observed that “removal from service shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or a Corporation/Company owned or controlled by the Government”.

4.2 On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent– delinquent submitted that it was the ailment which prevented him from reporting to duty and that the order of removal would force the petitioner out of his job and would render him without any income.

4.3 What weighed with learned Single Judge was the following reasoning supplied in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, as under,

“As could be seen from the chargesheet (Annexure-P) the sole charge against the petitioner was that he was unauthorizedly absent from 22.09.2016 till 06.01.2017 i.e., for a period of about four months. The defense of the petitioner was that he had been sanctioned leave from 06.09.2016 to 21.09.2016 due to back pain and the subsequent requests made by him for grant of medical leave had not been considered and therefore, it would be improper to allege that he was guilty of mis-conduct. The Enquiry Officer has taken note of the fact that the request of the petitioner had not been granted and therefore, his defense could not be accepted and the petitioner was, therefore, guilty of unauthorized absence.”

4.3.1 Learned Single Judge took the view that the period of unauthorised absence was only 107 days and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service would be wholly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. It is to be noted that the absence of the delinquent continued beyond the period indic