2008 (3) TMI 661 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether if all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee?

Summary

Issues:
1. Habitual absenteeism of the respondent.
2. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Judicial review of the High Court's decision.

Analysis:
1. The respondent was found to be a habitual absentee, with multiple instances of unauthorized absence from duty over the years. Despite warnings and lenient punishments, he continued to remain absent without proper leave sanction, leading to disciplinary actions against him.

2. The disciplinary proceedings against the respondent involved issuing charge sheets for continuous unauthorized absence, accepting guilt, and imposing punishments such as reduction of pay and censure. Ultimately, the respondent was removed from service due to his habitual absenteeism, as deemed serious misconduct under the company's Certified Standing Orders.

3. The High Court initially upheld the removal order, citing the respondent's continuous absence without proper justification as a violation of standing orders. However, on intra court appeal, the Division Bench found a violation of natural justice principles. It noted that the respondent's explanation regarding his mother's ill health was not adequately considered, leading to a conclusion that the termination was unjustified.

4. The Supreme Court emphasized the limited role of judicial review in disciplinary matters, highlighting that once procedural requirements are met, interference with the quantum of punishment is rare. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that sympathy or sentiment should not override legal orders in disciplinary cases. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.