Facts
The respondent, Satpal Singh, was appointed as Constable in Punjab Armed Forces on 4 August 1989 and he was subsequently posted in the Commando Force. When posted at Bahadurgarh, Patiala, due to spirited of one day on 4th April 1994, he was found absent this date and did not join his duty back, resulting he remained unauthorised absent from 4th April 1994 to 12th may 1994 for 37 days. Subsequently a departmental inquiry was initiated, in the course of which he was furnished a chargesheet, the list of witnesses and provided opportunities to defend himself. Although given these opportunities, he failed to cross-examine the witnesses or present a defence. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice to Satpal Singh after examining the enquiry report and he failed to reply to it.
He was later discharged from his job and the time he had spent away without permission was recorded as non-duty. Unsuccessful in the appeals filed by him before the departmental appellate and revisional authorities and civil suit was then laid by him to challenge the dismissal and to claim reinstatement. Although the trial court and first appellate court rejected his arguments, the High Court reversed their judgments, invalidated the dismissal, ordered his reinstatement, but denied him back wages pursuant to his sworn statement waiving this remedy.
Issues
- Whether the Disciplinary Authority could legally take into account the previous service record of the employee while imposing the punishment of dismissal, when no such mention was there in the charge-sheet?
- Whether the discharge was based solely on the respondent’s most recent misconduct, or multiple acts and so requiring notice of and opportunity to defend against the conduct.
- Interpretation of Rule 16.2(1) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 when an officer is dismissed on the charge of the gravest act and on generalized misconduct.
Legal Provisions Involved
- Rule 16.2(1) The Punjab Police Rules, 1934:
Part I: Termination only for weightiest delinquency, with due respect for length of employment and claim to a pension.
Part 2: Grounds of termination for repeated offences, to consider term of service and pension entitlement.
Article 141 of the Constitution of India- Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.
Arguments
Appellants (State of Punjab)
- The discharge was for the so-called new infraction of the respondent, unauthorized absence of 37 days.
- The past conduct referred to in the order was merely contextual and was not determinative; at the very foundation was the established absence.
- 16.2(1) permits dismissal without notice for the most serious misconduct – and this does not have to derive from previous conduct.
- The High Court made a mistake by considering the order to be founded on a pattern of wrongdoing.
Respondent (Ex. C. Satpal Singh)
- The previous record had evidently weighed with the dismissal but it was neither mentioned in the show-cause notice nor the proceedings.
- According to K. Manche Gowda, if past conduct is the foundation of the punishment or material consideration in imposing a penalty, non-communication thereof would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.
- The High Court was right to order reinstatement: its judgment was premised on failure to supply past conduct, which invalidated the termination.
Analysis
The Apex Court having considered in detail the provisions of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934as well as the disciplinary records of the respondent’s case. The Court emphasized that this rule is two -limbed – the first limb allows for dismissal as a result of the single most serious act of misconduct, regardless of length of prior service, if the misconduct is serious enough. 2nd Limb 4.2.1 This adopts a totting-up approach to conduct for dismissal which involves looking at length of service/pension claims.
The Court referred to the leading cases of India Marine Service Pvt Ltd., Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra and State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable to inform that to refer to past conduct only to lend assurance to the Stand of the government for dismissal does not lead to its becoming the foundation for dismissal. Instead, misuse of power through accumulated acts is the ground for dismissal only when the most recent incident cannot purely on its own justify the sanction.
Here, the unauthorised absence of the respondent was proved by a departmental enquiry and he did not dispute the same or adduce any mitigating evidence. While such an order referred to earlier bad act and forfeiture of service, the most potent cause for discharge was the respondent’s newly gross misconduct. This was sufficient to meet the first limb of Rule 16.2(1).
As such, the Court saw no defect, procedural or legal, in the requirement of dismissal. The weight of the misconduct and the failure of the respondent to answer at critical points warranted the sanction. Therefore, the order of dismissal issued on February 14, 2008 is affirmed as a proper and legal order and judgment of the court.
Judgement
The appeal was allowed as the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment. Key findings include:
- The order terminating the claimant from service was not on the basis of some earlier specific misconduct, though it was some highest misconduct with earlier misconduct added as restatement of background as against ground.
- The disciplinary authority did comply with the principles of natural justice; by making a complaint for past conduct, not being the basis thereof, no further opportunity was required.
- The High Court gravely erred in misinterpreting the requirements of law under Rule 16.2(1) and in misapplying the decision of this Court in K. Manche Gowda.
- Accordingly, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff is dismissed subject to parties bearing their own costs.
Conclusion
This supreme court decision further confirms that the dismissal for a single gravest act of misconduct follows without taking into account the past multiple misconduct if a proper procedure is followed. The precision of the Rule 16.2(1) differentiation between “gravest misconduct” and “continued misconduct” was crucial. The Court observed that a passing reference to the past conduct does not nullify the order unless it is also the basis of punishment. This case speaks volumes of courts’ zero tolerance to acts of misconduct in government service.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Stuti Vineet
If you want to read more please click here: State of Punjab and Others vs. Ex c. Satpal Singh
