"Big Fish Are Not Caught, You Are After Small Level Employee" : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class-4 Officer Against Dismissal Order

Orally remarking that "missing from duty is a major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army, but may not be so in a civilian employment", the Supreme Court last week(June 30) criticised the Central Government for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service for unauthorised absence from duty on a Grade-IV employee in the Ministry of Steel."Missing from duty is a major misconduct in paramilitary forces or the army. Had it been that kind of duty, we would have immediately agreed. But in a civilian employment, in some mines department, that too a class four employee? It is not that he was handling some sensitive kind of assignments where he compromised with his duties. We are agreeable that he had absented from duty, so retire him compulsorily, throw him out, don't keep him there, but allow his family to survive!", orally observed the Court.The Court recorded in its order that advocates for the appellants (the UOI through Ministry of Steel and the Director of the said Ministry) pointed out that besides the absence period, the respondent-employee had on several occasions remained on Casual Leave/Earned Leave or other sanctioned leave also and that such leave was sanctioned by the officers who were not competent to do so. However, the court asserted that the appellants have not proved that the respondent was "willfully" absent from service during those periods. "It remains a possibility that respondent merely acted under the faith that the officer in question had the power to approve his requests for leave. It is also undeniable that no action was taken against the officers who purportedly granted leave to the respondent despite not being competent to sanction the same", stated the Court in its order."The big fish are not caught and you are after the blood of the small-level employee...Did you take action against the undersecretary or the section officer who granted the leave in excess of their powers?", the Court orally asked ASG Jayant Sud and Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian for the appellants.In its order, the Court declared that it is of the considered opinion that no misconduct can be attributed to the respondent for the periods he availed one or the other sanctioned leave. As regards to the period for which the respondent was absent from duty, the Court noted in its order that it is satisfied that the punishment of dismissal from service is "too harsh, disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of the charge proved against the respondent", and that "the ends of justice would have been adequately met by imposing some lesser but major penalty upon the respondent"The Court then invoked its powers under Article 142 to uphold the setting aside of the dismissal order and to direct that the respondent-employee (who was not even represented before the top court) is to be reinstated in service but he shall be deemed to have remained in service till he completed minimum "qualifying service" of 20 years to earn pension and other retiral benefits, and that he shall be deemed to have been 'compulsorily retired from service' with entitlement to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits on completion of minimum qualifying service.The bench of Justices Surya Kant and J. B. Pardiwala was hearing the UOI's appeal against the 2012 decision of the Delhi High Court whereby the High Court had set aside the dismissal order of 14.07.2000 as well as the order of 18.02.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the said dismissal order passed against the respondent. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had said, "It is apparent that before it could be held that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and is liable for the punishment of dismissal from service, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to return a clear finding that the absence was willful. If there is no such finding, the absence of the petitioner from work, although it may be unauthorised, would not amount to misconduct. In the present case we find that there is no clear finding that the petitioner was willfully absent from work. It is true that some part of his absence was unauthorised but that by itself would not be sufficient, in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra), for returning the finding of misconduct and for foisting the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner"As recorded by the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Pardiwala in its order, the respondent was working as a Daftry (appears to be Grade-IV post). After the respondent had served for about seven years or so, he was served with a charge-memo of 04.12.1998 proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. An inquiry was conducted and after concluding that charge Nos. I, III and IV had been proved, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the Inquiry Report and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service of the respondent by...

"Big Fish Are Not Caught, You Are After Small Level Employee" : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class-4 Officer Against Dismissal Order

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags