Syed Zaheer Hussain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
- SCC(1999) 9 SCC 86
- AIRAIR 1999 SC 3367
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a disciplinary authority imposes a punishment of dismissal from service for unauthorised absence, and the tribunal finds that punishment to be grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, the court may exercise its power under Article 136 of the Constitution to substitute a lesser punishment, notwithstanding that the tribunal itself lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment. Where the facts and circumstances of a case demonstrate that a punishment imposed for misconduct is excessive, reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits, coupled with substantial monetary loss through forfeiture of a portion of back wages, may constitute an appropriate alternative punishment that serves the ends of justice without the harshness of dismissal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. By consent of learned Counsel for both parties, these appeals are taken up for final disposal.
3. The short question is whether the appellant who was working as Sorting Assistant under the Respondents' organisation could have been dismissed from service only because he was alleged to be unauthorisedly absent from 9-1-1985 to 15-1-1985. When he tried to resume his duties thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 16-1-1985 and after a departmental enquiry, was dismissed from service. He went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the view that the punishment meted out to the appellant was grossly disproportionate but could not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction. That is how the appellant is before us on grant of special leave.
4. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and on the contrary it is required to be substituted by appropriate lesser punishment. Learned Counsel for the respondents after instructions has stated that appropriate lesser punishment may be awarded by this Court. It will be acceptable to the respondents. In our view, ends of justice will be served if we set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant and instead direct reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity and with all other benefits save and except withdrawing 50 per cent of back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 11-10-1988 till today. In our view, this punishment which will involve substantial monetary loss to the appellant will meet the ends of justice and will be a sufficient corrective measure for the appellant. The request of learned Counsel for the respondents that two future increments may also be withheld without cumulative effect does not appear to us to be justified on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In our view, the aforesaid monetary loss to the appellant will meet the ends of justice so that he may be careful in future. It is ordered accordingly. At the request of learned Counsel for the respondents eight weeks' time is granted to the respondents to comply with the present order and to reinstate the appellant with continuity in service and with all other benefits. We make it clear that from today onwards the appellant will be entitled to full salary. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly. The orders of the Tribunal dated 4-11-1996 and 13-2-1997 arc set aside. O. A. No. 714 of 1993 filed by the appellant in the Tribunal shall stand allowed in aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free