9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Disciplinary inquiry for misplacement of a file leading to dismissal, challenge to the dismissal order on grounds of disproportionate punishment. Analysis: The appellant, a Senior Assistant in the respondent-Corporation, faced a disciplinary inquiry for misplacing a file, deemed misconduct under By-Law 18. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty, leading to dismissal by the disciplinary authority. The appellant challenged this order in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the dismissal, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellant contested the Inquiry Officer's findings, arguing the punishment was disproportionate. The appellant's unblemished record and lack of prior misconduct were highlighted. The appellant's counsel cited precedents allowing courts to interfere if the punishment shocks the conscience, referencing cases like Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra. The Supreme Court noted that while appellate courts typically do not substitute penalties, they can intervene if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. In this case, the appellant's 20-year unblemished service and the nature of the misconduct (file misplacement without malice) were considered. The disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss was deemed too severe for a mere act of negligence, lacking ulterior motives or record sensitivity. The Court found the punishment excessive and modified it to withholding one increment and stoppage at the efficiency bar, rejecting back wages but allowing subsistence allowance. The dismissal was substituted with the revised penalty, emphasizing the need to prevent prolonged litigation and ensure a fair outcome. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the dismissal order to the revised penalty, thus concluding the judgment.
|
