Holding

The dismissal was disproportionate and the punishment was modified to stoppage of two increments with loss of monetary benefits for the period out of service.

Summary

The appellant, a sweeper employed by Punjab Engineering College, was dismissed after being absent without permission for a total of 15 days in February-March 2004. He explained the absences were due to a matrimonial dispute involving his daughter, which caused him mental anguish and prevented him from obtaining leave. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and dismissed him; the High Court upheld the dismissal. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that courts may intervene only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Considering the appellant’s unblemished service record and the personal circumstances, the Court found dismissal excessive and modified the penalty to the stoppage of two increments, denying monetary benefits for the period out of service. The appeal was allowed and the disciplinary order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether dismissal for unauthorized absence of 15 days is a proportionate punishment.
Whether the court can interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision on the ground of disproportionality.
Whether the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
Whether personal circumstances mitigating the absence affect the appropriate disciplinary action.

Subjects

service lawmisconductdisciplinary actionproportionalitydismissalunauthorized absencejudicial reviewemployee discipline

Judgment

-.

(2009) 9 S.C.R. 379

JAGDISH SINGH A
v.
PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3565 of 2009)
MAY 14, 2009
y 8
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]
• Service Law - Misconduct - Dismissal - Propriety and
proportionality of punishment - Appellant-employee
dismissed for remaining absent for 15 days without obtaining C
permission from respondent-employer - Challenge to - Writ
Petition - Dismissal affirmed by High Court - On appeal,
held: Courts can interfere with punishment imposed by
disciplinary authority, only when it is shockingly
disproportionate to gravity of charges alleged and proved D
against a delinquent employee and not otherwise - The
instant case was not a case of habitual absenteeism -
Appellant gave explanation for his absence and for failing to
apply and obtain leave from employer at the relevant time -
Misconduct alleged definitely amounts to violation of E
discipline that is expected of an employee, but may not fit into
category of gross violation of discipline - On facts, having
regard to unblemished record of appellant in his long career,
and the reasons for which he remained absent without
obtaining permission, ends of justice would be met, if F
punishment imposed by disciplinary authority is modified to
that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect -
Further direction issued that appellant would not be entitled
for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of
service and that period would be counted only for purpose of G

- his service benefits.

The appellant was working as a sweeper in
respondent-college. He remained absent for 15 days

379 H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R.
j.

A without obtaining permission, whereupon departmental
enquiry was initiateci against him by the disciplinary
authority of respondent-college.

The appellant gave explanation that he absented
himself to sort out matrimonial problems of his daughter
B
and that he could not take prior permission for leave from y
his employer due to the mental agony, anguish, and
;,
anxiety that he was undergoing during the relevant time.
'
The Inquiry Officer however found the appellant guilty
and consequently the disciplinary authority dismissed the
c appellant from service. The appellant filed writ petition
challenging the correctness of the dismissal order which
was dismissed by the High Court.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the i-
D punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was
disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged
. against the appellant, especially, in view of the
explanation offered by him for his unauthorized absence
and lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice.
E
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The Courts and the Tribunals can interfere 1
with the decision of the disciplinary authority, only when
they are satisfied that the punishment imposed by the
F disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to
the gravity of the charges alleged and proved against a
delinquent employee and not Qtherwise. [Para 8] (383-E-
F]

G V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R. T.C. and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 338, ·~
relied on.

Kera/a Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan and
Anr. (1994) 1 SCALE 631, referred to.

H 2.1. The instant case is not a case of habitual
JAGDISH SINGH v. PUNJAB ENGINEERING 381
COLLEGE & ORS.
absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track A
record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In
his long career <'f service, he remained absent for 15 days
on four occasions in the month of February and March
2004. This was primarily due to sort out the problem of
his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the B
y
emotional attachment might have come in his way to
apply and obtain leave from the employer. The
misconduct alleged definitely amounts to violation of
discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in
the establishment, but may not fit into the category of c
gross violation of discipline. [Para 1OJ [385-A-C]

2.2. The order passed by the disciplinary authority
and affirmed by the High Court is set aside. Taking the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and
having due regard to unblemished record of the D
appellant, and the reasons for which he remained absent
without obtaining permission, the ends of justice would
be met, if punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority is modified to that of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect and it is further E
declared that he would not be entitled for any monetary
benefits during the period he was out of service and that
period would be counted only for the purpose of his
service benefits. [Para 11] [385-0-F]
F
Case Law Reference:
(2005) 7 sec 338 relied on Para 8
(1994) 1 SCALE 631 referred to Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. G
3565 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.08.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
H·
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.

A No. 1993 of 2006.
R.S. Rana and S.S. Dahiya (Raj Singh Rana) for the
Appellants.
Vimla Sinha (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment
C and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ
Petition No.1993 of 2006 dated 28.08.2007, wherein and
whereunder, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition by
affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the
respondent college.
D 3. The f~cts in brief are as under:-
The appellant was working as a Sweeper in the
Respondent-Punjab Engineering College. He remained absent
unauthorizedly for the period from 11.02.2004 to 13.02.2004,
17.02.2004 to 20.02.2004, 05.03.2004 to 09.03.2004 and
E 23.03.2004 to 26.03.2004. The departmental enquiry was
initiated by the disciplinary authority of the college by issuing a
charge memo containing the allegation of unauthorized
absence and an inquiry officer was appointed to enquire into
the charges alleged. In reply to the charge memo and also
F before the inquiry officer, the plea of the workman was that in
order to save matrimonial life of his daughter due to indifferent
attitude of her in-laws, he had no other go but to absent himself
on different dates during the month of February and March,
2004 and further he could not take prior permission from the
G employer due to mental agony, anguish, and the anxiety that
he was undergoing during the relevant time.

4. The inquiry officer after holding the enquiry has
submitted his enquiry report wherein, he has opined, that, the
H workman is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo.
... JAGDISH SINGH v. PUNJAB ENGINEERING 383
I
#., COLLEGE & ORS. [H.L. DATTU, J.]
-r
The disciplinary authority of the respondent-college, after receipt A
" of the report of the inquiry officer has accepted the report and
has passed an order dated 30.09.2004, imposing a major
penalty of dismissal from service.

5. The appellant had called in question the correctness or
8
otherwise of the order passed by disciplinary authority of the
"!'' respondent-r.ollege by filing civil writ petition before the High
Court. The Court by its order dated 28.08.2007 has dismissed
the writ petition.

6. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the only contention c
canvassed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant
was that, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
- is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged against
the appellant, especially, in view of the explanation offered by
the appellant for his unauthorized absence for a few days in D
the month of February and March 2004 and lesser punishment
would meet the ends of justice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,
submitted, that, unauthorized absence is a serious misconduct
,' E
and the said charge being proved against the employee, the
disciplinary authority was justified in imposing a major penalty
~ of dismissal from service.

8. The Courts and the Tribunals can interfere with the
decision of the disciplinary authority, only when they are satisfied
F
that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is
shockingly dispropodionate to the gravity of the Q;harges
alleged and proved against a delinquent employee and not
otherwise. Reference can be made to the decision of this Court
in the case of V. Ramana Vs. A.P.S.R. T.C. and Ors. (2005)
G
~ 7 sec 338, wherein it is stated:
,,.
"The common thread running through in all these decisions
is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's
decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
4 ,,
A Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury '""
case the court would not go into the correctness of the
choice made by the administrator open to him and the
court should not substitute its decision for that of the
B administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in decision-making process and not the
decision.
To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the
c conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for
interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in
exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.
In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is
-
D shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to
direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority
to reconsider the penalty imposed."
9. The other principle that requires to be kept in view, is
the··observation made by this Court in Kera/a Solvent
E Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan and Anr. ( 1994 ( 1)
SCALE 631, wherein it is stated:
"In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this,
.,.
perhaps well meant but wholly unsustainable tendency
towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial
F
. reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts
must be seen to be logical and tenable within the
framework of the law and should not incur and justify the
criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to
degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and
G private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity
of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. • ...
They must emanate logically from the legal findings and
the judicial results must be seen to be principled and
supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of
H . mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the
JAGDISH SINGH v. PUNJAB ENGINEERING 385

.... • COLLEGE & ORS. [H.L. DAITU, J.]

legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually A
----- irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process
of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability."
10. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism.
The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date
he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service,
8
• he remained absent for 15 days on four occasions in the month
of February ana March 2004. This was primarily due to sort out
-4
the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage
and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to
apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that c
is alleged, in our view, would definitely amounts to violation of

•
discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the
establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation
of discipline. We hasten to add if it were to be habitual
•• absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this D
appeal.
11. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the
order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30.09.2004
and affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 28.08.2007.
E
Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case
and having due regard to unblemished record of the appellant,
~ and the reasons for which he remained absent without obtaining
_, permission, the ends of justice would be met, if punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority is modified to that of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further F
declare that he would not entitled for any monetary benefits
during the period he was out of service and that period would
be counted only for the purpose of his service benefits. We
direct the disciplinary authority to issue appropriate orders in

-. • this regard within one month from the date of production of
certified copy of this Court's order by either of the parties .
G

12. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
8.8.8. Appeal disposed of. H