Every Individual Has Right To Complain, Can't Be Dismissed From Service Merely Because Complaint Is Not Proved: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that every individual has a right to complain of certain misdeeds, and merely because the complaint was not proved or not substantiated with materials, the individual could not be dismissed from service. In doing so, Justice C Kumarappan modified the order of dismissal from service imposed on an Associate professor to that of compulsory retirement. The court also directed the college to pay all monetary benefits and other attendant benefits to the professor. The court noted that dismissing the professor from service at the fag end of his career when he had been serving the institution for more than 20 years was shockingly disproportionate. “Every individual has got right to complain of certain misdeeds, provided it must be supported with verifiable materials. Merely because, the complaint is not proved or not substantiated with materials, will in no way entail dismissal from service. Further, the order of dismissal at the fag end of the carrier of the petitioner will definitely have cascading effect, not only against him and also others. It is in this background, I am of the view that the order of dismissal for mere giving of complaint is shockingly disproportionate,” the court said. Noting that the remedy should not be worse than the disease, the court emphasised that the punishment should always be commensurate with the gravity of the guilt. The court observed that in service jurisprudence, the Disciplinary Authority to always consider various factors, including the long period of service, promotions, period remaining for superannuation, etc. “It has long been settled that the punishment should commensurate with gravity of guilt. Under the service jurisprudence before imposing any punishment the Disciplinary Authority must consider the factors like the long and spotless service, number and nature of promotions, the encomia awarded to the delinquent and the shortness of the period remaining for superannuation,” the court added. The court was hearing a petition by John William, an Associate Professor at Loyola College who joined service in 1990 and had been serving the institution for more than 27 years. On October 30, 2017, William was suspended from service and on November 9, 2017, he was served with a charge memorandum. The allegation against William was that he had submitted a letter to the Management containing unfounded, highly defamatory, malicious, reckless and scurrilous allegations against some of the Staff of the college and circulated the alleged defamatory letter on social media like Whatsapp. After enquiry, he was dismissed from service William argued that the order of dismissal was against evidence and procedure. He submitted that when his suspension was initially challenged, the court had directed the management to consider his past service and to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings sympathetically. He added that the order of dismissal was passed in total disregard to the earlier orders of the court. he added that there was nothing to prove that he had circulated the letter on social media. He also contended that the punishment imposed was disproportionate and prayer for interference. The college, on the other hand, argued that William had made deliberate false and vituperative statement against responsible persons from the institution which was highly defamatory. It was also submitted that by circulating the letter on social media, William had caused disrepute to the institution and its officials. The college also argued that the court could not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer unless it was perverse. Arguing that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the charge, the college submitted that the order did not require interference. The court noted that while there was no dispute regarding the authorship of the letter, there was no proof to show that he was instrumental in circulating the letter on social media. The court also noted that the Enquiry Officer found that there was no imputation against the delinquent for circulating the letter on Whatsapp. Thus, the court observed that when there was no imputation, holding William liable for circulating the letter was against the principles of natural justice as he was not put to notice about the allegation. Regarding the letter, the court noted that a private communication between the management and the employee was not as serious as circulation of the letter on Whatsapp. The court noted that the action of William, giving a complaint, only exhibited obstinate and obfuscate opinion towards the institution which resulted in the hyperbolic allegation. The court also noted that even though the court had previously asked the management to decide the issue by considering William's previous conduct, there was nothing in the order to show that the management had considered the same....

Every Individual Has Right To Complain, Can't Be Dismissed From Service Merely Because Complaint Is Not Proved: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags