Doctrine Of Proportionality In Service Matters Not Applicable When Employment Itself Is Based On Fraud: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the doctrine of proportionality in service matters cannot be invoked in relation to an employee whose basis of attaining employment was fraudulent.It was also held that the High Court's scope of interference with a disciplinary authority's decision on the quantum of penalty in service matters is minimal.The division bench of Justice Pushpendra...
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the doctrine of proportionality in service matters cannot be invoked in relation to an employee whose basis of attaining employment was fraudulent.
It was also held that the High Court's scope of interference with a disciplinary authority's decision on the quantum of penalty in service matters is minimal.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that the doctrine of proportionality could not be invoked to favour an employee who attained employment based on a forged document. The court said that in such cases, no length of tenure could create any sympathy in the minds of the Court to reduce the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
“Doctrine of proportionality has been invoked time and again in cases where the long tenure creates harsh conditions for the employees but at the same time this court is constrained to note that the doctrine of proportionality cannot be invoked in cases where the root of the employment itself is based upon a forged document. The very eligibility of the person is at stake since the employee has obtained such employment by fraud, and therefore, no amount of long tenure can create any sympathy in the minds of this Court.”
Background
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (“BPCL”), represented by Mr. Nishant Bora, against the order of a single judge of the Court in a writ petition filed by the employee of BPCL. The employee was appointed as a watchman in 1987 but was served with a charge sheet in 2002 alleging submission of a forged transfer certificate at the time of appointment. The enquiry against the employee culminated in the employee being found guilty following which he was dismissed after 17 years of service, in 2003.
A writ petition was preferred by him against the dismissal order. The single bench upheld the findings of the enquiry report but applying the doctrine of proportionality remanded back the matter to BPCL for reconsideration on quantum of penalty in light of 17 years of service of the employee. This special appeal was filed by BPCL against this order of the single judge.
After analysing the material on record, the Court upheld the enquiry report and referred to the Supreme Court case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Rajendra D. Harmalkar which gave observations on the question of judicial review and interference of courts in the matters of disciplinary proceedings.
Furthermore, the Court stated that the relationship between an employer and employee was based on trust and mutual respect, however, when such employment had been sought on the basis of certain forged documents or misrepresentations, the very foundation of that relationship gets deteriorated.
In this light, the Court observed that the doctrine of proportionality could not be applied in the present case since there was no benefit of doubt that could be assigned to the employee. Hence, the length of service of the petitioner could not warrant any lenient view of the Court.
“The doctrine of proportionality can be invoked when there are multiple steps/gradings through which we may see the bracket of the parameter of the legality, and thus, it has to operate within the realms of law where the quantum of punishment can be reduced in accordance with law, while keeping into due consideration certain relevant factors, including the factual matrix of the case and the length of service.”
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and no interference was deemed appropriate.
Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v Gyan Chand Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 216