2009 (7) TMI 1142 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the principles of natural justice have been violated? Whether the dismissal is vitiated by the same and is thus bad and unjustified? Whether the tribunal was justified in reversing its own decision subsequently when there had been no further evidence adduced? Whether the High Court was right in their appreciation of evidence and exercising power in the matter of interfering with the order of dismissal? Held that - Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as of the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside and the order of dismissal passed against the respondent herein must be restored. The learned Single Judge also misused the power vested in him by remanding back the matter to the industrial tribunal for reconsideration when the charges were found to be proved. The tribunal also erred in reversing its own decision on the same evidence for which we fail to see as to how the same forum can appreciate the same evidence differently. The argument that the work assigned to the respondent was not a part of his job even, if accepted does not entitle him to abuse his superiors and create an unhealthy atmosphere where the remaining might just take a clue from the unruly behaviour and subsequently use it to the detriment of the company. Further the letter by which he accepted all the charges sets up a strong proof against the respondent beyond which nothing remains to be analyzed.

Issues Involved:

a. Whether the principles of natural justice have been violated?
b. Whether the dismissal is vitiated by the same and is thus bad and unjustified?
c. Whether the tribunal was justified in reversing its own decision subsequently when there had been no further evidence adduced?
d. Whether the High Court was right in their appreciation of evidence and exercising power in the matter of interfering with the order of dismissal?

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

a. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:

The Supreme Court examined if the principles of natural justice were violated, noting that such principles are invoked where a person suffers a civil consequence or prejudice from an administrative action. The Court emphasized that natural justice comprises two fundamental rules: no one should be a judge in their own cause (nemo judex in re sua) and fair hearing (audi alteram partem). The Court found that the inquiry officer, Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, who was also the company lawyer, did not exhibit bias or partiality. The Court also noted that the respondent had been adequately notified of the charges and the hearing dates, fulfilling the requirements of natural justice.

b. Validity and Justification of Dismissal:

The Court reviewed the charge sheet and found it specific and intelligible. The respondent was aware of the charges and the witnesses against him, as evidenced by his written explanation. The Court dismissed the argument that the respondent was denied legal representation, noting that representation through a lawyer is not an indispensable part of natural justice in administrative proceedings. The Court concluded that the charges were specific, and the respondent had admitted to them in a letter, making the observance of natural justice a mere formality.

c. Tribunal's Reversal of Decision:

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for repeatedly remanding the case back to the tribunal despite the tribunal's detailed examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The Court found that the tribunal had already conducted a fresh inquiry and upheld the dismissal based on evidence and reasons, making further remands unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources.

d. High Court's Interference with Tribunal's Decision:

The Court held that the High Court misused its power by remanding the case back to the tribunal for reconsideration when the charges were already proved. The tribunal's reversal of its own decision on the same evidence was deemed unjustifiable. The Court emphasized that the punishment of dismissal was not harsh compared to the charges and was not "shockingly disproportionate."

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the High Court, restoring the order of dismissal against the respondent. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →