"Big Fish Are Not Caught, You Are After Small Level Employee" : Supreme Court Grants Relief To Class-4 Officer Against Dismissal Order
Live LawOrally 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 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. 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 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. 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, 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. It went on to observe in its order that instead, it is inclined to invoke the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, "keeping in mind the doctrine of proportionality and with a view to do complete justice between the parties"; that "this Court has utilised Article 142 on numerous occasions in the past, such as in Hind Construction & Engineering v. Their Workmen and Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce v. Their Workmen to ensure that the punishment meted out to a public sector employee for a violation of the applicable service laws/rules is not disproportionate to the infraction that he/she has committed"; and that "the doctrine of proportionality is employed to examine whether the penalty that is imposed upon is congruent with the charges brought against the delinquent employee" In directing that the order of the High Court of 06.12.2012 to the extent of setting aside the dismissal is upheld, the bench further ordered that no arrears of pay shall be paid to the respondent from the date of dismissal from service i.e.