2014 (2) TMI 1271 - SC - Indian Laws

Punishment of dismissal - direction of dismissal punishment set aside and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages by HC - Held that - It is telltale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the doors of the court at his own will. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of habitual absenteeism is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. Employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organization develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. The result of aforesaid analysis would entail overturning the judgments and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and, accordingly, we so do. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and orders passed by the High Court are set aside leaving the parties to bear their respective costs

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Legitimacy of the respondent's unauthorized absence from duty.
2. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal.
3. Delay in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

Detailed Analysis

Legitimacy of Unauthorized Absence
The respondent was appointed as a Surveyor and later promoted to Junior Engineer in the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). He remained absent from duty without intimation from 28.8.1995 until 1.4.1997, when he reported back with a medical certificate. Despite receiving reminders, he did not offer an explanation for his absence. Consequently, a charge-sheet was issued for misconduct under Regulations 6(1) and 6(2) of the CMWSSB Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. An enquiry found the charges proved, leading to his dismissal on 16.4.1998. The disciplinary authority noted that the belated submission of the medical certificate indicated unauthorized absence.

Proportionality of Punishment
The High Court, while considering the writ petition, focused on the proportionality of the punishment. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench both opined that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh for a first-time offense of absenteeism, especially given the respondent's medical condition. They cited precedents like Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, and Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College to support their stance that unauthorized absence due to medical reasons does not constitute grave misconduct warranting dismissal.

However, the Supreme Court scrutinized these judgments and emphasized that the doctrine of proportionality applies when the punishment shocks the conscience of the court. The Court noted that the respondent's prolonged absence and failure to respond to communications from the employer demonstrated indiscipline. The Court held that the punishment was not shockingly disproportionate, given the respondent's position as a Junior Engineer and the expectations of responsibility and discipline associated with it.

Delay in Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of delay in filing the writ petition. The respondent approached the High Court four years after his dismissal. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that delay and laches can be a significant factor in denying relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that delay reflects inactivity and inaction, which can affect others' rights and create injustice. The Court held that the High Court erred in not addressing the issue of delay, which should have led to the dismissal of the writ petition at the threshold.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court was unjustified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal and in entertaining the writ petition after a four-year delay. The judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with each party bearing their respective costs.