Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 1468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Pramod - Petitioner
Versus
Cement Corporation of India (CCI) - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2598 of 2003
Decided On : 10-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Dutta
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Birbal
The punishment in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the misconduct, and medical grounds for absence should be duly considered.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Absence from Duty - Rule VII of the Leave Rules - Medical Board Report - Unjustified Removal from Service
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Pramod, was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for unauthorized absence from duty. The charge-sheet alleged unauthorized absence until 26th November, 1996. The petitioner cited medical grounds for his absence, submitting periodic medical certificates advising rest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge-sheet was limited to the absence until 26th November, 1996, and the petitioner had submitted medical certificates advising rest. The court observed that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and quashed the impugned order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's unauthorized absence, the validity of the medical certificates, and the proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct, if any, committed by the petitioner. The court emphasized the need for proper application of mind and consideration of medical grounds in disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned order removing the petitioner from service was quashed and set aside. The proceedings were remanded for reconsideration, and the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of the impugned order. The issue of back-wages was to be considered after the de novo decision.
C. Hari Shankar, J.
1. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner Pramod, by the respondent-Corporation vide Memorandum dated 10th February, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as “the charge-sheet”) culminated inexorably, in the passing of an order, dated 29th July, 1997, removing the petitioner from service. Appeal and review, thereagainst, having failed to yield any favourable outcome, the petitioner is before this Court, by means of the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner, who was working as PS/Steno in the office of the respondent-Cement Corporation of India was, admittedly, on earned leave from 24th July, 1996 to 3rd August, 1996, owing to his brother’s hospitalization. According to the petitioner, he met with an accident, incapacitating him from joining duty on 3rd August, 1996. Vide telegram dated 14th August, 1996, the petitioner applied for extension of his leave till 31st August, 1996, in support of which he submitted a certificate of Dr. Sunita Bountra, MBBS, certifying that he was under her treatment “for accidental injury Rt leg with irritable bowel syndrome from 1.8.96.”, for which she advised him complete bed rest from 3rd August, 1996 to 31st August, 1996. The respondent rejected the petitioner’s application, vide telegram dated 16th August, 1996, which informed him he was being marked absent from duty.
3. Vide a second telegram dated 28th August, 1996, the respondent directed the petitioner to report for duty, again reiterating that he was being marked absent, for the days when he did not so report.
4. The petitioner applied, vide letter dated 2nd September, 1996, for extension of leave till 15th September, 1996. With the said application, he annexed two more certificates, from Dr. S. Bountra, advising him rest for a period of 15 days from 1st September, 1996 and, thereafter, for another 15 days from 16th September, 1996. The respondent replied, vide letter dated 27th September, 1996, returning the copy of the Medical Certificate annexed by the petitioner and directing him to report for duty immediately, failing which action, as per the Conduct Rules of the respondent-Corporation, was threatened.
5. According to the petitioner, he was next examined by one Dr. R. Kumar, MD who issued the following certificates, on his letter head:
“Dr. KUMAR’s MEDICAL CENTRE
3, CENTRAL MARKET, LODI COLONY
NEW DELHI-110003
Dr. Kumar R. - MD. - Regd. No.1251
Dr. V. Kumar - M.B.B.S. - Regd. No.3805
Dr. S.K. Sethi - M.B.B.S. DLO - Regd. No. 15076
Dr. Praful Durani - M.B.B.S. - Regd. No.2837
Dr.(Mrs.) R. Amarnath - M.B.B.S. - Regd. No.26974
Certified that Mr. Pramod Verma, whose signature is given below is under my treatment for Lumbago (AC) due to IBS and is hereby advised complete bed-rest for a period of about a fortnight which in my opinion is too necessary for his recovery.
Sd/-
Pramod Verma
15/10/96
Sd/-
1/10/96
This is in continuation of the above treatment of Mr. Pramod Verma, who is hereby advised further bed rest for a period of about 2 weeks more since he is on the way of recovery.
Sd/-
15/10/96”
6. On the basis of the aforementioned certificate of Dr. R. Kumar, the petitioner again applied, vide letter dated 1st October, 1996, for extension of leave upto 15th October, 1996. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent, vide letter dated 15th October, 1996, informing him that leave, as sought by him, was not sanctioned and directing him to report for duty immediately, failing which disciplinary action would be initiated against him.
7. The petitioner did not join duty; instead, he again applied on 16th October, 1996, for extension of the leave granted to him till 20th October, 1996.
8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, even thereafter, the condition of his client did not improve, in support whereof he has drawn my attention to a prescription, dated 6th November, 1996, of Dr. Deepak Chaudhary, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Safdarjung Hospital, which again advised the petitioner “rest fo
