Proportionality Anchored in Past Record: Madras High Court Affirms Dismissal for Repeated Insubordination and Reaffirms Prejudice Test for Non‑supply of Enquiry Report

Case: A. Shanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 MHC 2235

Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan, J. and R. Vijayakumar, J.

Date: 19 September 2025

Appeal: W.A. (MD) No. 457 of 2020 (Clause 15, Letters Patent)

Introduction

This Division Bench decision addresses the perennial labour law question of proportionality of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when an employee with a proven record of prior misconduct faces dismissal for repeat acts of insubordination and threatening behavior. The case arises from the dismissal of a conductor employed by the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), for entering the Branch Manager’s room, abusing him in filthy language, issuing threats, and attempting to assault him with a punching machine in April 1992.

After a domestic enquiry found the charges proved, the workman was issued a second show-cause notice, to which he did not reply. He was dismissed on 08.05.1993. His industrial dispute (I.D. No. 30 of 1995) was rejected by the Labour Court, Madurai, by Award dated 28.01.2002. The writ petition challenging the Award was dismissed on 30.06.2016. Upon the workman’s death in 2018, his widow, A. Shanthi, pursued the present writ appeal.

The appeal raised three intertwined themes: (i) alleged violation of natural justice (non-supply of the enquiry report), (ii) proportionality—whether dismissal was excessive given the nature of misconduct, and (iii) alleged victimization due to the workman’s role as a trade union office-bearer.

Summary of the Judgment

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the dismissal from service. The Court held:

On natural justice: The plea of non-supply of the enquiry report had already been rejected by the Single Judge for want of demonstrated prejudice; that finding stood, and the ground was not even pressed in the appeal.
On proportionality: Prior disciplinary record—especially two earlier incidents of similar abusive/threatening conduct against the Branch Manager resulting in penalties—distinguished this case from precedents where a solitary lapse led to a reduced penalty. Considering the repeated nature of insubordination, the penalty of dismissal was not disproportionate.
On trade union victimization: The plea was unsubstantiated; union office does not immunize acts of indiscipline or threats to superiors.
On process: The workman’s failure to reply to the second show-cause notice or to tender mitigating factors limited the Court’s scope to interfere with penalty.

Detailed Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and How They Were Applied

(a) Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 3 SCC 346

The appellant relied on this Supreme Court ruling to argue that dismissal for abusive language was disproportionate. In Rama Kant Misra, the Supreme Court emphasized Section 11A and the need to calibrate punishment to the nature of misconduct, noting the employee’s 14 unblemished years of service and the isolated nature of the lapse. The Court thereby set aside the dismissal.

The Division Bench distinguished the present case on the decisive fact that the workman here had a documented history of similar misconduct—two prior proven incidents of abusing/threatening the same Branch Manager, each punished with increments cut for one year. This pattern made the current misconduct a repetition rather than an isolated aberration. The Bench highlighted the Supreme Court’s observation (quoted in the judgment) that the absence of “blameworthy conduct” over 14 years drove the result in Rama Kant Misra. That predicate was absent here.

(b) Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., (1984) 2 SCC 569

Similarly invoked by the appellant, this case involved abusive language but no prior adverse record considered by the management. The Supreme Court treated dismissal as disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with back wages.

The Division Bench again treated it as distinguishable because the management here expressly considered prior misconduct of a similar nature, which the workman did not dispute, and issued a second show-cause notice that went unanswered. Thus, the aggravating factor of repeat misconduct—central to proportionality—was present.

(c) S. Raja v. M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (DB, Madras HC, 25.05.2023, W.A. No. 1835 of 2021)

The appellant also referenced a Division Bench ruling where reinstatement (without back wages) was ordered after disputation over alleged abusive conduct amid union-related context. The present Bench noted the case but did not follow that remedial path, principally because the proven past record of similar misconduct here makes the current case more aggravated, and also because the allegation of victimization was unsubstantiated.

(d) Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, AIR 2005 SC 1924

Cited by the employer, this Supreme Court decision holds that High Courts and Labour Courts ought not lightly interfere with dismissal for serious misconduct like assaulting a superior, when findings are established. The Division Bench’s stance harmonizes with this principle: proven aggressive and threatening conduct directed at a superior, repeated over time, attracts strict discipline.

(e) Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31

On natural justice, the Supreme Court reiterates that non-supply of an enquiry report vitiates punishment only if prejudice is established. The Single Judge applied this standard and found no prejudice; moreover, the ground was not pressed as an appellate ground. The Division Bench left that finding undisturbed, implicitly reaffirming the “prejudice” test.

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Bench’s analysis proceeds along four axes:

Established misconduct and process compliance: Domestic enquiry findings (Ex. M.9) held the charges proved. The management filed comprehensive documents (Exs. M.1–M.19), including the charge memo (Ex. M.3), enquiry proceedings (Ex. M.7), findings (Ex. M.9), second show-cause notice (Ex. M.10) and dismissal order (Ex. M.11). The workman did not adduce oral evidence or documents before the Labour Court and, critically, did not respond to the second show-cause notice that invited mitigation.
Proportionality under Section 11A ID Act guided by past record: The Bench accepts that proportionality must be evaluated holistically. It underscores the repeat nature of similar indiscipline (two prior incidents of abusing and threatening the Branch Manager) as a decisive aggravating factor absent in the Supreme Court cases relied upon by the appellant. The past record thus tips the balance in favor of dismissal, aligning with a managerial prerogative to enforce discipline, especially where insubordination escalates into threats and attempted assault.
Natural justice—prejudice is key: Relying on the Single Judge’s finding (ground not pressed on appeal), the Bench accepts that non-supply of an enquiry report does not ipso facto vitiate the disciplinary action; the employee must demonstrate specific prejudice. None was shown here. This tracks the Supreme Court’s prejudice doctrine.
Union victimization claim rejected: The Bench is categorical that trade union office does not cloak misconduct. Without evidentiary support showing mala fides or selective enforcement, the plea fails. The consistent pattern of prior similar misconduct undercuts any inference of victimization.

Two additional strands reinforce the result:

Effect of non-response to second show-cause: The Bench records that the second show-cause explicitly warned that silence would be treated as acceptance. The employee’s failure to advance mitigating factors constrained the Court’s ability to seek reasons to reduce penalty and was treated as indicative of admission of proved charges.
Appellate restraint: In a Clause 15 writ appeal arising from a writ petition that itself challenged a reasoned Labour Court award, the Bench eschewed re-appreciation of factual disputes. Absent perversity, patent illegality, or violation of natural justice (none shown), interference was unwarranted.

3) Impact and Prospective Significance

This judgment clarifies several practical and doctrinal points likely to shape future labour litigation in Tamil Nadu and beyond:

Past record is outcome-determinative in proportionality review: Where the past record reveals similar misconduct—especially insubordination cum threats to superiors—dismissal is unlikely to be viewed as disproportionate. Workmen cannot readily invoke “solitary incident” precedents to dilute penalty.
Section 11A discretion is not a license for leniency in repeat misconduct: Labour Courts and writ courts will give weight to the employer’s need to maintain workplace discipline when misconduct is recurrent and escalating.
Second show-cause notice is a crucial mitigation window: Silence at this stage will count against the employee. It can be read adversely and curtail subsequent pleas for reduction of penalty.
Natural justice challenges require a prejudice showing: Non-supply of the enquiry report, without demonstration of prejudice, will not undo disciplinary action.
Union office is not a shield: Allegations of victimization must be substantiated with cogent material; otherwise, established misconduct will be sanctioned regardless of union status.

For employers, the decision underscores the importance of:

Documenting prior misconduct and penalties,
Conducting a procedurally sound enquiry,
Issuing a detailed second show-cause notice that explicitly invites mitigation and gives clear consequences for non-response.

For employees and unions, it is a caution: cumulative indiscipline—in particular, insubordination morphing into threats—will meet with the ultimate penalty, and procedural objections without concrete prejudice are unlikely to rescue the situation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 11A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Empowers Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals to reappraise punishment and, even when misconduct is proved, to substitute a lesser penalty if dismissal is disproportionate. But the Court balances the nature of misconduct with past record; repeat, aggravated misconduct narrows the room for leniency.
Proportionality of Punishment: The legal principle that the penalty must fit the gravity and context of the misconduct. Mitigating factors (long, clean service; isolated lapse) may reduce punishment. Aggravating factors (repeat similar misconduct; threats/assault; supervisory insubordination) justify stricter sanctions.
Second Show-Cause Notice: After the enquiry finds charges proved, the employer issues this notice to hear the employee on the proposed penalty. This is the employee’s opportunity to present mitigating circumstances; not replying can be treated adversely.
“Without cumulative effect” (in increment cuts): A penalty reducing pay increments for a set period without affecting future incremental progression. It is milder than penalties with cumulative effect (which would depress future increments as well).
Natural Justice—Prejudice Test: Procedural lapses (like non-supply of enquiry report) vitiate action only if they cause real prejudice—i.e., they likely affected the outcome or deprived the employee of a meaningful opportunity to defend.
Clause 15 Letters Patent Writ Appeal: An intra-court appeal against a Single Judge’s writ order. The appellate court generally refrains from re-evaluating facts unless there is perversity, manifest illegality, or breach of natural justice.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s ruling in A. Shanthi v. State of Tamil Nadu crystallizes a coherent and pragmatic approach to proportionality in industrial discipline: prior misconduct—especially of a similar, insubordinate, or threatening character—is a decisive aggravator that justifies dismissal, notwithstanding precedents involving solitary lapses. The Court reinforces that the prejudice test governs natural justice objections and that a failure to respond to the second show-cause notice meaningfully constrains pleas for mitigation.

Key takeaways:

Dismissal for repeated insubordination/threats to superiors is proportionate; prior similar misconduct will weigh heavily.
“Solitary incident” cases (e.g., Rama Kant Misra, Ved Prakash Gupta) are inapplicable when the record shows repetition.
Lack of an enquiry report does not ipso facto vitiate dismissal—prejudice must be shown.
Trade union office does not immunize proven acts of indiscipline.
Silence at the second show-cause stage is an adverse factor that can be treated as acceptance of findings and forfeiture of mitigation.

In the broader legal context, this judgment will likely serve as a benchmark for Labour Courts and High Courts when balancing employee rights with the employer’s imperative to maintain workplace order, particularly in public utility services where operational discipline is critical.