2003 (2) TMI 513 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of dismissal without holding an enquiry.
2. Scope of judicial review in administrative decisions.
3. Allegations of mala fides and victimization.
4. Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal.
5. Award of back wages and reinstatement.

Summary:

1. Legality of Dismissal Without Holding an Enquiry:
The respondent employee was dismissed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct, including assaulting a senior officer and creating chaos. The employee claimed victimization due to union activities, arguing the dismissal violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Single Judge held that an enquiry could not be dispensed with in this case, and the Division Bench upheld this view, noting that Article 311(2) was not applicable but limited judicial review was permissible.

2. Scope of Judicial Review in Administrative Decisions:
The Court emphasized that judicial review of administrative actions is limited to examining illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. It cited the principles laid down in the "Wednesbury's case" and the CCSU case, noting that the Court should not substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authority unless there is a manifest error or arbitrary exercise of power.

3. Allegations of Mala Fides and Victimization:
The employee alleged mala fides without specific details or impleading the persons allegedly acting with mala fides. The Court noted that allegations of mala fides require clear proof and cannot be based on vague statements. The High Court's approach was criticized for assuming mala fides without concrete evidence.

4. Loss of Confidence as a Ground for Dismissal:
The employer argued that the employee's misconduct led to a loss of confidence, which justified dismissal. The Court acknowledged that loss of confidence could be a valid ground for dismissal, especially when the employee's actions affect the employer's reputation and the safety of other employees. The Court noted that the alleged acts were prima facie acts of misconduct, justifying the employer's loss of confidence.

5. Award of Back Wages and Reinstatement:
The Court discussed the discretionary nature of awarding back wages, emphasizing that full back wages are not automatic upon reinstatement. It referred to previous judgments, noting that the Tribunal must exercise discretion judicially. The Court directed a further payment of Rs. 12 lacs towards back wages, in addition to the interim payment of Rs. 3 lacs, as full and final settlement, considering the long passage of time and the employer's loss of confidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with directions for a total payment of Rs. 15 lacs towards back wages, considering the impracticability of holding an enquiry and the employer's loss of confidence in the employee. The Court balanced the conflicting interests of both parties, emphasizing the need for a disciplined and cordial working atmosphere.