Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, June 26
Punishment is to be imposed considering the gravity of misconduct and not the service rendered by an employee, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi also ruled that the unauthorised absence from duty amounted to a grave act of misconduct, especially in case of a member of a disciplined force.
The ruling came in a case where a police official, initially deployed in the security of former Nihang leader Ajit Singh Phulla, was dismissed from service after he remained absent for over three months following his transfer.
His counsel argued that the police official had 13 years of service to his credit, when he was dismissed by the authority. Justice Sethi asserted: “Merely that an employee has 10 years of service to his/her credit cannot be taken into account so as to reduce the punishment.” The employer was well within his jurisdiction to impose the proportionate punishment, once there was a grave misconduct by an employee. The jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment was only where it was totally disproportionate to the allegations and shocking to the conscious of the court. Justice Sethi also asserted that the punishment of dismissal from service could not be said to be disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case warranting interference once “a gravest act of misconduct” had been proven.
Justice Sethi also refused to accept the counsel’s argument that the employee should have been compulsorily retired as he had more than 13 years of service, making him eligible for pensionary benefits.
The Bench asserted the argument’s acceptance would result in indiscipline. An honest employee unable to continue for one or the other reason, and resigning after 13 years of service, would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. He would be put on a lower pedestal than the one mis-conducting himself in case the counsel’s argument was accepted on taking a lenient view as he had served for 13 years.
“It is not envisaged under the rules that an honest employee, who had to resign, should suffer forfeiture of his service, whereas an employee who has misconducted himself should get lenient punishment so as to get all benefits. The net result of the argument’s acceptance will be that no employee will like to resign from the service, rather will intend to commit misconduct in case he/she has rendered more than 10 years of service so as to make him/her eligible for pensionary benefits,” Justice Sethi asserted while dismissing the petition.
