Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Govt Employee For 20-Month Absence From Duty, Making "Scandalous" Allegations Against Employer

Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in matters of disciplinary punishments, the Court observed, "...the legal position relevant for present purposes, as culled out of above quoted and other plethora of judicial pronouncements is that imposition of penalty is in the domain of exclusive discretion of the disciplinary authority, which discretion has to be exercised judiciously; that the punishment imposed must not be strikingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, in the sense that it should not shock the judicial conscience". 

The bench noted that as per the legal position, the scope of the High Court in the exercise of judicial review of the punishment awarded is limited to the extent of examining the proportionality of the punishment with the proved misconduct. It said that the test to be applied by the court to "ascertain proportionality" is whether a "reasonable employer would have imposed such punishment in the like circumstances".

The order came in a plea moved by one–Vishav Bandhu Gupta challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi's order, which upheld the Disciplinary Authority's penalty of dismissal from service.

Background

Gupta was appointed as an Income Tax Officer in 1976 after clearing the All India Civil Services Examination and later got promoted as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. He was dismissed from service based on two charges of misconduct as per a July 2000 Memo. First, due to his "unauthorised absence" from duty between November 9, 1998, and June 19, 2000 (when he was suspended) which showed a "lack of devotion to duty" and acting in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant.

Second, was that Gupta gave statements to the press and on the electronic media "irresponsibly without authority and recklessly on sensitive issues" and on matters of government policies constituting acts of "indiscipline unacceptable" for any government servant. These statements included claims of concealed income by test cricketers, that there were alleged links between the film industry and criminal mafia, that the then "Home Secretary had approached Dawood to harm the actress Manisha Koirala", that there were corruption-related transfers in the government, among others. 

Gupta contended that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charged misconduct of unauthorised absence from duty. He contended that since he was admitted on sanctioned medical leave on account of various illnesses, a lenient view ought to have been taken.

On the other hand, the respondents–including the Union of India supported the impugned orders as well as the punishment order and contended that the present petition is totally devoid of merit. Respondent's counsel pointed to records of various statements unauthorisedly made by the petitioner to the media and contended that in view of "obnoxious allegations" levelled by the petitioner against the government, no compassion is called for. 

Findings

With respect to Gupta's absence, the Court noted that he took the leave without any permission from his employer for a very long period. It said that such absence for a prolonged period of time has to be seen in the light of the 'high profile nature of his duties.'

The Court stated if Gupta was ill, then nothing prevented him from seeking further leave. It took note of the exchanges between Gupta and the respondent authorities. It noted that the respondents wrote a letter to Gupta on February 4, 1999, asking him to explain his unauthorised absence. In response to this, the petitioner stated that "on February 16, 1999, he had been advised medical rest for backache and that he had applied for medical leave" for the period from October 20, 1998, and had sought an extension till February 14, 1999. 

"It would also be significant to note that the petitioner in the said letter, seeking extension of medical leave till 14.02.1999, ante-dated the letter to 01.12.1998, and dispatched the same on 12.01.1999 as reflected from the postal record of PO, Vasant Kunj. The petitioner also claimed in the said letter that he had sought extension of leave up to 04.12.1998 by way of earlier letter. But no such earlier letter had ever reached the respondents. Not only this, neither the medical certificate nor the leave application in prescribed format was sent by the petitioner ever," the court noted. 

The Court further observed that during his absence, Gupta was not bedridden and was unable to submit his leave application.

"It would also be very significant to note that during the said period of unauthorised absence, reason whereof is sought to be explained by the petitioner as backache, it is not that the petitioner was bedridden and was unable to submit leave application; as mentioned above, even during this period of unauthorised absence, petitioner was engaged in tirade against the government through his interactions with media and was making obnoxious and scurrilous statements against the government," the court said.

With respect to Gupta's communication with the media, the Court noted that despite being a government servant, the petitioner engaged in a slanderous campaign against the government.

"Coming to the second article of charge proved against the petitioner, as extracted above from statement of imputation, the petitioner despite being a government servant engaged himself in slanderous campaign against the government and made scandalous statements to the media, which statements owing to his high position in the taxation machinery enjoyed high acceptability by media and public as credible information, thereby damaging the reputation of the government in the eyes of public," the order notes.

Noting his "scandalous statements" the bench said that these were made by the petitioner through interviews to various popular media entities. 

With respect to consideration of his past service record, the court said that the petitioner's own pleadings and also the "extracted statements of imputations reflecting repeated suspensions" for his other acts of misconduct would fail to help his cause. 

Pointing to extracts in the order, the court noted that the petitioner was suspended from June 6, 1990, to October 21, 1994, and "disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty were initiated against him" which culminated into a lenient penalty of censure.

"Certainly, it is not a case which could be dealt with paring knife; use of battle axe was most appropriate. We do not find it a case of the State using sledgehammer to crack a nut. We are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld," the bench said while dismissing the plea. 

Case title: Vishav Bandhu Gupta vs. Union Of India And Ors. 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 973