2006 (1) TMI 551 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether Appellant employed by the Respondent herein as a Safety Officer had committed acts of misconduct? Held that - An order of suspension can also be passed by the employer in exercise of its inherent power in the sense that he may not take any work from the delinquent officer but in that event, the entire salary is required to be paid. An order of suspension can also be passed, if such a provision exist in the rule laying down that in place of the full salary, the delinquent officer shall be paid only the subsistence allowance specified therein. The Appellant herein admittedly obtained the subsistence allowance offered to him without any demur whatsoever. The order of suspension was not passed as a measure of penalty within the meaning of the Rules. Rightly or wrongly, the Respondent invoked Rule 23.3 of HMT Limited Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. The Appellant did not raise any question about the applicability of the said rule, although such a contention could have been raised. In view of the fact that the order of suspension was not passed in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules, the findings of the Commissioner that the said rule will be applicable must be held to be incorrect. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Malice in initiating departmental proceedings.
2. Legality of suspension and subsequent dismissal.
3. Maintainability of writ petition despite alternative remedy.
4. Proportionality of punishment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Malice in Initiating Departmental Proceedings:
The appellant contended that the departmental proceedings were initiated with malice, as a criminal case was registered against the management at his instance. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that the appellant admitted to being in a tense mood during the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer found the appellant guilty of misconduct for one charge but exonerated him of two other serious charges, indicating no malice from the management. The court emphasized that when a charge is proven, exoneration on the grounds of purported malice is not applicable.

2. Legality of Suspension and Subsequent Dismissal:
The appellant argued that suspension, being a punishment under Rule 8 of the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 1984, precluded subsequent dismissal for the same offense. The court clarified the types of suspension: as a punishment, during pendency of proceedings, or as an inherent power of the employer. The appellant had accepted subsistence allowance without objection, implying acceptance of the suspension under the company's conduct rules rather than as a penalty under the Rules. The court found the Labour Commissioner misdirected in ruling the suspension and dismissal as violative of the Rules, noting the appellant's admission of misconduct and lack of remorse.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petition Despite Alternative Remedy:
The appellant argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Rule 14(3) of the Rules. The court stated that availability of an alternative remedy does not bar judicial review if the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, violates principles of natural justice, or involves fundamental rights. The High Court's discretion to entertain the writ petition was justified, especially since the Labour Commissioner did not provide the respondent adequate opportunity to present their case.

4. Proportionality of Punishment:
The appellant claimed the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct. The court upheld the dismissal, referencing precedents where verbal abuse justified dismissal. It emphasized that the gravity of the offense and the lack of mitigating factors warranted the punishment. The court cited cases like Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.N. Narawade, where abusive language against a superior officer was deemed sufficient for dismissal, reinforcing the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment. The court found no malice in the disciplinary proceedings, validated the suspension and dismissal under the company's conduct rules, upheld the maintainability of the writ petition, and deemed the punishment proportionate to the misconduct.

← Previous Next →