Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Govt Employee For 20-Month Absence From Duty, Making "Scandalous" Allegations Against Employer

Observing that this was not a case of a "State using a sledgehammer to crack a nut", the Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an Income tax official, on grounds of "misconduct" for a 20-month absence from "duty" without permission and for making "false and scandalous allegations" against his employer. Taking note of the "described acts of misconduct committed" by the official, a division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia in its order said, "...we are unable to believe that no reasonable employer would have dismissed him from service by way of penalty. We are unable to find the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner as the one that could shock conscience of any court. We are of the considered view that no lesser punishment than dismissal from service would be commensurate to the gravity of the multiple acts of misconduct described above". The bench said that even if there were "no restraints" in exercising judicial review of the punishment order, it would not find any other punishment "proportionate to the acts of misconduct committed" by the petitioner. "A person castigating their employer through a constant tirade of false and scandalous allegations does not deserve to continue in the employment of the said employer," the bench underscored. Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in matters of disciplinary punishments, the Court observed, "...the legal position relevant for present purposes, as culled out of above quoted and other plethora of judicial pronouncements is that imposition of penalty is in the domain of exclusive discretion of the disciplinary authority, which discretion has to be exercised judiciously; that the punishment imposed must not be strikingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, in the sense that it should not shock the judicial conscience". The bench noted that as per the legal position, the scope of the High Court in the exercise of judicial review of the punishment awarded is limited to the extent of examining the proportionality of the punishment with the proved misconduct. It said that the test to be applied by the court to "ascertain proportionality" is whether a "reasonable employer would have imposed such punishment in the like circumstances".The order came in a plea moved by one–Vishav Bandhu Gupta challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi's order, which upheld the Disciplinary Authority's penalty of dismissal from service.BackgroundGupta was appointed as an Income Tax Officer in 1976 after clearing the All India Civil Services Examination and later got promoted as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. He was dismissed from service based on two charges of misconduct as per a July 2000 Memo. First, due to his "unauthorised absence" from duty between November 9, 1998, and June 19, 2000 (when he was suspended) which showed a "lack of devotion to duty" and acting in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant.Second, was that Gupta gave statements to the press and on the electronic media "irresponsibly without authority and recklessly on sensitive issues" and on matters of government policies constituting acts of "indiscipline unacceptable" for any government servant. These statements included claims of concealed income by test cricketers, that there were alleged links between the film industry and criminal mafia, that the then "Home Secretary had approached Dawood to harm the actress Manisha Koirala", that there were corruption-related transfers in the government, among others. Gupta contended that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charged misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty. He contended that since he was admitted on sanctioned medical leave on account of various illnesses, a lenient view ought to have been taken.On the other hand, the respondents–including the Union of India supported the impugned orders as well as the punishment order and contended that the present petition is totally devoid of merit. Respondent's counsel pointed to records of various statements unauthorisedly made by the petitioner to the media and contended that in view of "obnoxious allegations" levelled by the petitioner against the government, no compassion is called for. FindingsWith respect to Gupta's absence, the Court noted that he took the leave without any permission from his employer for a very long period. It said that such absence for a prolonged period of time has to be seen in the light of the 'high profile nature of his duties.'The Court stated if Gupta was ill, then nothing prevented him from seeking further leave. It took note of the exchanges between Gupta and the respondent authorities. It noted that the respondents wrote a letter to Gupta on February 4, 1999, asking him to explain his unauthorised absence. In response to this, the petitioner stated that "on February 16, 1999, he had been advised medical rest for backache and that he had ...

Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Govt Employee For 20-Month Absence From Duty, Making "Scandalous" Allegations Against Employer

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags