2009 (8) TMI 1130 - SC - Indian Laws

Employee reinstated after six-month unauthorized absence deemed too harsh for removal despite admitted misconduct

Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. Versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors.

Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. Versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. - AIR 2010 SC 75, JT 2009 (11) SC 472, (2009) IV LLJ672 SC, ... The core legal questions considered by the Court include:(i) Whether the disciplinary proceedings and removal order against the employee for unauthorized absence were conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules and principles of natural justice;(ii) Whether the charges of misconduct, specifically unauthorized absence exceeding six months, were proved beyond doubt;(iii) The scope and limits of judicial review in departmental disciplinary proceedings, particularly regarding findings of fact and the adequacy of evidence;(iv) Whether the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate or excessive relative to the proved misconduct, invoking the doctrine of proportionality;(v) The entitlement of the employee to back wages for the period of removal prior to reinstatement.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Legality and Regularity of Disciplinary Proceedings and Proof of ChargesThe disciplinary action was initiated under Rule 29 of the Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, for unauthorized absence, overstay of sanctioned leave, and desertion. The employee admitted the charges during the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted a report confirming guilt beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice and ultimately passed an order of removal from service.The Court referred to authoritative precedent on judicial review of departmental inquiries, emphasizing that the High Court's role is supervisory and not appellate. The Court reiterated principles from State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao, which restrict judicial interference to procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, or findings based on no evidence. The Court held that since the charges were admitted and the inquiry was conducted without procedural impropriety, the findings stood fully proved.The Court rejected the High Court's contrary approach, which had reassessed evidence and found procedural flaws in communication of the removal order. The Supreme Court held that mere transmission of the order by the Director Technical did not amount to procedural irregularity, and the disciplinary authority had duly considered the employee's explanations. The Court underscored that the High Court erred in substituting its own assessment of facts and evidence.2. Scope of Judicial Review in Departmental EnquiriesThe Court elaborated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. It emphasized that courts do not act as appellate bodies to re-evaluate evidence but intervene only if the inquiry is conducted by an incompetent authority, if there is violation of natural justice, or if the findings are wholly arbitrary or perverse. The Court relied on the principle that findings based on some legal evidence cannot be overturned on grounds of inadequacy or insufficiency of evidence.3. Doctrine of Proportionality and Quantum of PunishmentThe Court examined whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence for over six months. It referred extensively to precedents including Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (CCSU), Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, and others, outlining the evolution and application of the doctrine of proportionality in administrative law.The Court explained that under the Wednesbury and CCSU tests, judicial interference with administrative punishment is warranted only if the punishment is illegal, irrational, or shockingly disproportionate. The Court noted that proportionality involves a balancing test and a necessity test, ensuring that penalties are not excessive or vindictive.Applying these principles, the Court held that although the misconduct was established, the penalty of removal was unduly harsh and grossly disproportionate. The employee had admitted guilt, explained the absence as due to personal reasons beyond control, and had attempted resignation which was not accepted. The Court held that no reasonable employer would impose removal under such circumstances, describing the punishment as 'not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations.'The Court declined to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of punishment, considering the facts and the employee's conduct. Instead, it imposed a modified relief denying back wages as a form of punishment for the misconduct.4. Entitlement to Back WagesThe High Court had granted back wages for the period of removal, but the Supreme Court reversed this part of the order. It held that while the employee must be reinstated, he was not entitled to back wages from the date of removal until reinstatement, as a consequence of the proved misconduct. This was a balanced approach recognizing the employee's guilt yet avoiding the extreme penalty of removal without any consequence.Significant Holdings'The admission on the part of delinquent before the Inquiry Officer leaves no manner of doubt that the charges against the delinquent stood fully proved.''It is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a Court of Appeal and reach its own conclusions.''The power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process.''The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations.''No reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances.''The employee shall be reinstated forthwith but shall not be entitled to any back wages from the date of removal until reinstatement.'The Court reaffirmed the principle that judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to procedural fairness and rationality, and findings of fact cannot be disturbed if supported by evidence. It further established that while misconduct warrants punishment, the quantum of punishment must be proportionate, and courts will intervene if the penalty is excessive or shocking. The final determination was to allow reinstatement without back wages, balancing the employee's proven misconduct against the severity of the penalty imposed.