2009 (8) TMI 1130 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied? Whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Unauthorized absence from duty.
2. Procedural propriety in disciplinary proceedings.
3. Proportionality of the punishment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Unauthorized Absence from Duty:
The Respondent No. 1, an employee of Eastern Coalfields, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty for more than six months. Despite reminders, he failed to report back to duty after his sanctioned leave expired. The disciplinary enquiry initiated under Rule 29 of the Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, found him guilty of:
- Absenting himself without leave.
- Overstaying the sanctioned leave.
- Desertion of job and failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty.

The respondent admitted the charges during the enquiry, stating personal reasons beyond his control for his absence. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges were fully proved.

2. Procedural Propriety in Disciplinary Proceedings:
The disciplinary proceedings were scrutinized for procedural propriety. The respondent was given a second show cause notice along with the enquiry report, to which he responded. The disciplinary authority, after considering all relevant documents, imposed the penalty of removal from service. The Single Judge of the High Court, however, found procedural lapses, stating that the actual order of the Disciplinary Authority was not served to the respondent, and reasons for not accepting his explanations were not provided.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's findings, emphasizing that the charges were unequivocally admitted by the respondent, leaving no room for differing with the Inquiry Officer's conclusions. The Court reiterated that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself, especially when the delinquent admits the charges.

3. Proportionality of the Punishment:
The Supreme Court examined whether the punishment of removal was grossly disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absence. The doctrine of proportionality, as discussed in various precedents, was applied. The Court noted that while the respondent admitted his guilt, he also provided reasons for his absence and had submitted his resignation, which was not accepted by the management.

The Court held that the punishment of removal was unduly harsh and grossly excessive given the circumstances. It was observed that a reasonable employer would not have imposed such an extreme punishment for the misconduct admitted by the respondent. The Court decided to reinstate the respondent but denied him back wages for the period from his removal until reinstatement as a proportionate punishment for his misconduct.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed in part. The respondent was to be reinstated without back wages for the period of his removal, thus addressing the proportionality of the punishment while upholding the findings of the disciplinary enquiry. Each party was to bear its own costs.