Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J.
Jitendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10320/2020
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Misconduct - Compulsory Retirement - Standing Orders - [1964) 4 SCR 540 : AIR 1964 SC 506; State of Mysore v. L. Manche Gowda, (2010) 10 SCC 539; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 1 RLW 398 (Raj.); Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases), Jodhpur & Ors. v. Anand Swaroop Sharma
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was charged with submitting a fraudulent rail ticket for reimbursement of medical and travel expenses. The department imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which was affirmed on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the misconduct and quashed the impugned orders, reducing the punishment to the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect.
Issues: The issues raised included the delay in serving the show-cause notice, the absence of financial loss to the department, consideration of past conduct without notice, and the proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct and that past conduct should not be considered without notice to the employee. The court also emphasized the absence of financial loss to the department.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the petitioner to be permitted to join services with reduced punishment.
JUDGMENT
Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 - The Station Director, Unit-3 & 4 (RR Site), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Rawatbhata and further affirmed vide order dated 13.08.2020 by the appellate authority whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed against the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
On 08.06.2017 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with the averment that alongwith his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for the treatment of his son, he has claimed the amount qua the traveling expenses and for the purpose, has annexed a forged rail ticket. The charge as framed shows that the rail ticket annexed with the claim was a fraudulent one and the ticket did not match with the claim amount as made. A reply to the charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report dated 09.03.2018, the petitioner was held to be guilty. Objections to the inquiry report were filed by the petitioner. After considering the said objections, a show-cause notice dated 16.05.2019 was served on him whereby it was stated that the department proposes to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement against him and he may file his reply to the same. After considering the reply as filed by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.05.2020 was passed whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired. Appeal against the same was filed before the competent authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:-
(i) that the show-cause notice qua the alleged incident was served on him after a period of seven months of submission of the claim by him without any reason.
(ii) that before any order being passed or the claim being considered by the department, he had specifically rectified his mistake and had written to the department that the said ticket was inadvertently annexed by him and he had no intention to claim more than the amount spent on his traveling.
(iii) that the amount as claimed by him was Rs. 2433/- whereas the rail ticket enclosed with the claim was for an amount of Rs. 6435/-. Had the intention of the petitioner been to claim more amount, he would have claimed the amount as shown in the rail ticket and not the actual amount spent by him on his travel.
(iv) the claim as raised by him was never reimbursed to him and therefore the department did not suffer any pecuniary loss at any point of time.
(v) the petitioner obtained no monetary benefit out of the said claim and therefore, no misconduct in terms of Clauses 17.2, 17.21 & 17.22 of the Standing Orders of the department could be alleged against him.
(vi) the inquiry as conducted and the inquiry report as filed were based on the sole fact that the petitioner had admitted his mistake and therefore, was held liable to be punished whereas the said ground should have been considered vice-versa and a lenient approach ought to have been taken against him because of the fact that he admitted his mistake before the reimbursement could be made.
(vii) the misconduct as alleged against the petitioner and as found proved against him does not fall within the definition of misconduct as defined in any of the Clauses of the Standing Orders, to be specific, Clauses 17.2, 17.21 & 17.22.
(viii) even if it is assumed that the misconduct of the petitioner was proved, the punishment as imposed was highly disproportionate to the act committed. The punishment of compulsory retirement is the most severe and harsh punishment which could not have been imposed for the act as alleged and as alleged to be proved.
(ix) the punishment has been imposed keeping in consideration the punishment imposed on him in some earlier departmental proceedings of misconduct. No show-cause notice regarding the earlier punishment being considered for the present proceedings was eve
AI
The punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct, and past conduct should not be considered without notice to the employee.
The requirement of providing a reasonable opportunity to the employee and considering past conduct with notice to the employee in disciplinary proceedings.
In Banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every Bank employee.
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee can continue if initiated during service; defining grave misconduct under pension rules does not require explicit mention in charges, as grave alle....
A single act of omission or error of judgment would not constitute misconduct unless it resulted in serious consequences.
The principle of proportionality of punishment is crucial in determining the appropriate penalty for proved charges of misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
