Employee's History Of Misconduct Justifies Dismissal Despite Minor Final Charge: Punjab And Haryana High Court Upholds Termination
High Court of Haryana: Justice Jagmohan Bansal upheld the dismissal of a transport conductor, finding that the termination justified given the employee's extensive history of misconduct. The court held that while the final charge related to insubordination, the disciplinary authority could consider the employee's past record of 52 departmental proceedings, including multiple instances...
High Court of Haryana: Justice Jagmohan Bansal upheld the dismissal of a transport conductor, finding that the termination justified given the employee's extensive history of misconduct. The court held that while the final charge related to insubordination, the disciplinary authority could consider the employee's past record of 52 departmental proceedings, including multiple instances of embezzlement, when determining punishment. The court affirmed that High Courts cannot interfere with disciplinary decisions unless the punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court.
Background
Sumer Singh, the petitioner, was employed as a conductor in the Haryana Transport Department from 1977 until his termination in 1995. Over the course of his 18-year career, he faced 52 departmental proceedings for various forms of misconduct, including embezzlement of funds, absence from duty, and misbehavior with senior officers. These proceedings resulted in several punishments, such as censure, recovery of funds, and stoppage of annual increments.
The incident leading to Singh's dismissal occurred after a complaint was filed by Suraj Bhan, an inspector in the department. Following this complaint, Singh was served with a charge sheet for, among other things, speaking loudly to a senior officer. A departmental inquiry was initiated, and Singh, upon admission of his guilt, was found responsible for misconduct. Although he was initially given a chance to rectify his behavior, he committed further acts of embezzlement during the intervening period, which resulted in his dismissal on March 9, 1995.
Arguments
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate representing Singh, argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offense. He contended that Singh's termination was not due to the series of prior incidents but was based solely on the charge sheet accusing him of speaking loudly to a superior officer. Malik emphasized that this charge was minor in nature and did not warrant the harsh penalty of dismissal, especially since Singh had already completed 18 years of service in a pensionable job. He urged the court to consider the imposition of a lesser punishment, such as compulsory retirement, instead of outright dismissal.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana, countered these arguments by pointing to Singh's extensive history of misconduct. Sharma highlighted that Singh had been involved in 52 departmental proceedings, including multiple instances of embezzlement, and even committed offenses during the pendency of his inquiry. He argued that while separate charges might be required for different acts of misconduct, it was well within the disciplinary authority's discretion to consider an employee's past behavior when determining the appropriate punishment. Sharma contended that Singh's repeated violations and disregard for departmental rules justified his dismissal, which was a necessary measure to maintain discipline within the department.
Court's Reasoning
The court upheld the Labour Court's ruling, which had found the departmental inquiry to be valid and justified. The court noted that Singh's previous conduct could not be overlooked when determining the severity of the punishment. The Labour Court's findings revealed that Singh had been repeatedly implicated in acts of embezzlement and insubordination. The Labour Court had remarked that Singh did not deserve the sympathy of the court, as his repeated violations suggested a pattern of behavior that posed a nuisance to both the department and the general public.
Further, in considering the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, the High Court cited a precedent from the Supreme Court, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), which limited the extent to which courts could interfere with disciplinary decisions. According to this precedent, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or question the proportionality of punishment unless it is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court. In Singh's case, the court found no reason to interfere, as the evidence of misconduct was clear, and the punishment was proportionate to the offenses committed. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Subrata Nath (2022), reiterating that both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are vested with the power to assess evidence and determine appropriate penalties based on the gravity of the misconduct. The court held that Singh's dismissal was neither arbitrary nor capricious, as it was based on substantial evidence of repeated misconduct over a prolonged period. Thus, the court concluded that Singh's dismissal was justified. The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to intervene in the disciplinary action taken by the Transport Department.
Decided on: 14-10-2024
Citation: 2024:PHHC:133706
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Raman Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana