- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Parshotam Lal v. Union Of India
Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant joined M/s Semi-Conductor Complex Limited (SCL) on 20.9.1984 as Senior Assistant (P&S). He developed a lumbar spine problem (L5-S1) in 2008 and was absent from duty for an extended period. The applicant asserts he informed the employer of his illness by telegrams and registered letters but that leave was not sanctioned. A charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 charged him with unauthorized absence from service w.e.f. 7.3.2008. The charge-sheet and subsequent inquiry notices were, according to respondents, sent to addresses on record but some letters were returned undelivered; a public notice was also published on 22.9.2009. The Inquiry Officer conducted proceedings and recorded that on 5.5.2010 the applicant accepted the charges unconditionally and refused cross-examination of witnesses. The disciplinary authority, relying inter alia on Rule 8(viii) of the DOS Employees (CCA) Rules, 1976, imposed removal from service by order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure A-1). The applicant's appeal against that order was rejected by order dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure A-2). The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking quashing of the removal order and the appellate rejection, and sought reinstatement with consequential benefits. The Tribunal heard submissions, reviewed the inquiry record (including a signed memorandum and inquiry proceedings dated 5.5.2010 containing the applicant's admissions), and considered the parties' pleadings before delivering the challenged order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the order dated 30.7.2010 imposing penalty of removal from service can be quashed on the ground that the applicant did not admit the charges and was denied an opportunity of hearing during the inquiry.
- Whether the rejection of the applicant's appeal dated 6.10.2010 should be quashed for alleged procedural irregularities and failure to consider his representation.
- Whether mentioning the proposed punishment in the show-cause notice vitiates the disciplinary process and makes the representation a mere formality.
- Whether inclusion of past incidents of absence in the charge-sheet, for which the applicant was previously punished, prejudiced the disciplinary authority.
- Whether the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct of prolonged unauthorized absence (about 2 years and 4 months), and whether the punishment can be given retrospective effect.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The applicant contended he was ill (L5-S1 disc problem) and had informed authorities by telegrams and letters, but leave requests were not accepted.
- He claimed he had not been allowed to join duty in SCL when fit; he submitted medical fitness certificate and a joining report in April 2010.
- He alleged the inquiry was conducted mechanically and arbitrarily, that he was not granted opportunity during the inquiry, and that the inquiry report wrongly recorded a confession which he denied.
- He argued the disciplinary authority ignored his representation before imposing removal and that the appellate order rejecting his appeal was unsustainable.
- He argued the show-cause notice prejudiced him by indicating the proposed punishment in advance, rendering his representation perfunctory.
- He claimed earlier absences were improperly included in the charge-sheet to prejudice the disciplinary authority, and he also pleaded mitigation on grounds of long service and being sole breadwinner.
- He contended the penalty of removal was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents asserted the applicant was on continuous unauthorized absence w.e.f. 7.3.2008 and that the charge-sheet was issued via registered cover to addresses on record, but some communications were returned undelivered.
- They stated a public notice was published inviting him to collect the charge-sheet; when he failed to appear, the inquiry proceeded and multiple notices were sent, some returned undelivered.
- The respondents averred that the applicant provided a new address later and was given a final opportunity; he appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 5.5.2010 and made a written confessional statement admitting all charges without pressure or coercion.
- They asserted the applicant refused cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, leading the Inquiry Officer to close the inquiry and submit the report.
- The disciplinary authority considered the confessional statement, the inquiry report, the applicant's representations, and his prior conduct, and imposed removal under Rule 8(viii) of the DOS Employees (CCA) Rules, 1976; the appellate authority then rejected his appeal after detailed consideration.
- Consequently, respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ashok Kumar Narula v. Union of India — OA No. 23.PB/2009 (decided 18.3.2010) | Cited by applicant in support of the contention that mentioning punishment in the show-cause notice prejudices the process. | The Court found this judgment distinguishable on facts and held that where the applicant had made a clear admission of guilt, mention of proposed punishment in the show-cause notice did not prejudice him. |
| Mohinder Singh v. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority — TA No. 63/2007 (Principal Bench judgment dated 8.5.2008) | Relied upon by applicant along with Ashok Kumar Narula regarding prejudice from a pre-specified punishment in show-cause notice. | The Court treated this authority as distinguishable on facts and therefore not applicable to the present case in which the applicant had admitted the charges. |
| Ranjit Singh v. Union of India — JT 2006 (4) SC 376 | Cited by applicant concerning requirement of detailed reasoning and opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings. | The Court held Ranjit Singh distinguishable because the present case was founded on a clear and unconditional admission of guilt made by the applicant during inquiry; hence the need for detailed reasoning in orders was not the same as in Ranjit Singh. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Tribunal proceeded through a fact-driven analysis focusing primarily on the inquiry record and the applicant's own written admissions:
- Admission in Inquiry Record: The Tribunal examined the inquiry proceedings of 5.5.2010 and the applicant-signed Exhibit D(2), which contained an express written admission: the applicant "accepted the charges unconditionally ... without any pressure or coercion" and requested another chance to serve. The Tribunal treated this contemporaneous signed admission as dispositive against the applicant's claim that he never admitted the charges.
- Opportunity of Hearing / Procedural Fairness: The Tribunal noted that the applicant was given notice and an opportunity to appear. During the inquiry he refused to cross-examine witnesses. Because the disciplinary process was founded on an unconditional admission recorded on the inquiry date, the Tribunal found that the level of detailed reasoning or additional opportunity that might be required in other fact patterns (as in cited authorities) was not warranted here.
- Effect of Show-cause Notice Mentioning Punishment: The applicant argued that naming the proposed punishment prejudiced his representation. The Tribunal reconciled the authorities cited by the applicant but distinguished them on facts: since an unequivocal admission existed, the mention of proposed punishment in show-cause notice did not result in prejudice sufficient to vitiate the process.
- Use of Past Incidents in Charge-sheet: The Tribunal observed earlier episodes of absence were mentioned in the charge-sheet and final order but found they were used as examples to demonstrate incorrigibility rather than serving as the operative basis for the present punishment. The punishment related specifically to the period of absence between 7.3.2008 and 30.7.2010 specified in the charge-sheet.
- Proportionality of Punishment: Considering the duration of unauthorized absence (about 2 years and 4 months) and aggravating conduct — notably providing incorrect or misleading addresses and deliberate avoidance of employer communications (letters returned undelivered) — the Tribunal concluded removal from service was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
- Retrospective Effect: While upholding the penalty as proportionate, the Tribunal held that the punishment could not be given retrospective effect as a matter of law. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed that part of the impugned order which purported to make the punishment retrospective, directing that the punishment will take effect from the date of issue of the disciplinary authority's order.
- Directions to Disciplinary Authority: The Tribunal further directed the disciplinary authority to take an appropriate decision regarding how the intervening period and the period of absence is to be treated, and to do so within three months from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal's order.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: OA DISMISSED (except as specified).
Implications and concrete consequences:
- The Tribunal dismissed the OA as devoid of merit because the applicant had unambiguously admitted the charges during inquiry and procedural objections based on denial of opportunity or perfunctory representation were not sustained on these facts.
- The Tribunal upheld the disciplinary authority's finding that removal from service was not disproportionate to prolonged unauthorized absence and related aggravating conduct.
- However, the Tribunal quashed the retrospective application of the punishment: the removal will take effect from the date of the disciplinary authority's punishment order (i.e., it will not be applied retrospectively). The disciplinary authority was directed to decide how the intervening period/period of absence is to be treated and to do so within three months of receipt of this order.
- No costs were awarded.
- The opinion distinguished existing precedents on their facts rather than laying down any new broad legal proposition; the decision addresses the parties' rights and remedies in the particular factual matrix and therefore does not purport to create a new precedent beyond its application to these facts.
This summary is based exclusively on the content of the provided opinion and does not add or infer information beyond that opinion.
Promilla Issar, Member (A):— The applicant has filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:—
“i) ORDER dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by Respondent no. 3 whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the applicant, may be quashed.
ii) Order dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure A-2) passed by Respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal filed by the applicant against the order dated 30.7.2010 has been rejected, may be quashed.
iii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to reinstate him into service as if the impugned orders have never been passed, with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances and arrears thereof along with interest thereon from the date the same became due till the date of actual payment.”
2. The projected case of the applicant is that he had joined service in the M/s Semi-Conductor Complex Limited (SCL) on 20.9.1984 He has stated that while he was working as Senior Assistant (P&S), he got affected by L5-SI disc space problem in Lumbar Spine in the year 2008 and could not attend office for a long time. He has stated that he kept on informing the authorities about his illness through telegrams, but his request for grant of leave was not accepted by the authorities. However, a charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 was issued to the applicant for remaining absent without sanction of leave. He has stated that he was declared fit to join duty by the PGI on 17.4.2010 and since 18.4.2010 was a holiday, he submitted his medical fitness certificate, issued by the PGI, along with joining report, on 19.4.2010 When he came to know that an inquiry was being conducted against him, he submitted a representation dated 19.4.2010 to the Inquiry Officer informing him that he was not allowed to join duty in SCL and joining report was sent by him through UPC. He has stated that in response to notice dated 24.4.2010, he appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 5.5.2010 His contention is that while submitting the inquiry report on 21.5.2010, the Inquiry Officer recorded that the applicant had accepted the charges unconditionally without any pressure or coercion and that he had also admitted his mistake of not providing his postal address to SCL for official records whereas he had not made any such confessional statement. Thereafter, inquiry report was supplied to him with Memo. dated 9.6.2010, proposing a penalty of removal from service upon him. He had submitted a representation dated 20.7.2010 in response to show-cause notice dated 9.6.2010, explaining that he kept on sending intimation of his illness through telegrams and registered letters and that the inquiry was held in a mechanical manner. The grievance of the applicant is that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service upon him vide order dated 30.7.2010 without taking his representation into account. He submitted an appeal dated 7.9.2010 against the order dated 30.7.2010, pointing out a number of irregularities in the procedure adopted in the inquiry, but the same was rejected vide order dated 6.10.2010 According to the applicant, the impugned orders are arbitrary, non-speaking and legally not sustainable. His contention is that the order of the disciplinary authority is violative of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity has been granted to him during the course of the inquiry and the same has been concluded on the basis of his non-existent admission. Hence this OA.
3. The applicant has also filed MA 236/2012 vide which he has placed on record the correct copy of the charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 as Annexure A/4, in which he has been charged with absenting himself from service w.e.f 7.3.2008 onwards without prior approval of the competent authority.
4. The respondents have stated in their reply that the applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has tried to suppress material documents and information available on record. They have stated that since he was on continuous unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f 7.3.2008, a charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 was issued through registered cover at his local and permanent home address as was available with them. However, the said letter was received back undelivered by the postal authorities. Thereafter, they got a public notice issued on 22.9.2009 in the newspapers, advising him to appear and collect the charge-sheet. They have stated that since the applicant failed to appear, hence, the disciplinary authority proceeded further with the inquiry and appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry into the charges levelled against the applicant in the charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 They have further stated that the Inquiry Officer also issued several letters, indicating the date of inquiry at his last known address, but the same were received back undelivered. Thereafter, a communication was received from the applicant indicating his new address and the Inquiry Officer, vide Memo. dated 24.4.2010 again sent the charge-sheet dated 23.4.2010 at his new address vide which a final opportunity was given to him to participate in the inquiry proceedings on 5.5.2010 According to the respondents, the applicant participated in the inquiry proceedings on 5.5.2010 and made a confessional statement in writing on 5.5.2010, unconditionally admitting all the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet dated 23.4.2009 and stated that he was doing so without any pressure or coercion. They have stated that the Inquiry Officer offered him the opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses which he refused and consequently, the Inquiry Officer closed the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority.
5. They have further stated that the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of removal from service upon the applicant under Rule 8(viii) of the DOS Employees (CCA) Rules, 1976 after taking into consideration the confessional statement of the applicant in writing, the inquiry report, representation of the applicant and his previous conduct. They have also stated that the appeal of the applicant was also rejected by the appellate authority by passing a detailed order after carefully taking into consideration the points raised by him in his appeal. Consequently, they have prayed for dismissal of the OA.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder, generally reiterating the averments made in the O.A
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. The first two grounds taken by the applicant are that the order of removal has been passed on the wrong premise that he had admitted the charges without pressure or coercion and had been sending his leave applications directly or through a friend during the said period of absence. However, we find that during the hearing of the inquiry on 5.5.2010, the applicant himself has signed on the proceedings in which IO has recorded that he had admitted his charges without any pressure or coercion as follows:—
“Shri Purshotam Lal accepted the charges unconditionally made in the charge-sheet (Memo SCL/PGA/8508.CL01094/2009/1917/119 dated April 23, 2009) without any pressure or coercion.
Inquiring Authority asked Shri Purshotam Lal for cross examination of witness but Shri Purshotam Lal replied in negative.
The Presenting Officer presented the second witness Shri N.P Singh in the case. Shri N.P Singh confirmed that he has not received any authorized leave from Shri Purshotam Lal pertaining to the said period. The same was confirmed by Shri Purshotam Lal that no such leave application was got sanctioned by him and no medical certificate was provided. The Inquiring Authority asked Shri Purshotam Lal to cross examine the Presenting Officer to which Shri Purshotam Lal refused.
Shri Purshotam Lal also confirmed that despite his awareness about CHSS in existence at SCL he has been under treatment from non-empanelled private practitioner
P.O asked why medical certificate was not submitted earlier to which he admitted his mistake.”
Exhibit D(2) in the inquiry which has been quoted above, in the proceedings on 5.5.2010 and signed by the applicant on that date, is a letter from the applicant himself addressed to the IO in which he has stated as follows:—
“I, Purshotam Lal, staff code no. CL01094 came to SCL today for first date of inquiry and present myself and admit all charges which are against me vide memorandum dated 23.4.2009.ed 24.4.2010 as mentioned as subject above.
I therefore, request you to please give me one more chance to serve in SCL.”
From this it is clear that the first ground taken by the applicant falls and does not support his argument and in fact is totally contrary to his emphatic statement in the affidavit that he had not admitted the charge.
9. The second ground taken by the applicant is that the inquiry proceedings on 5.5.2010 were conducted in an arbitrary manner and there had been no admission on his part. In view of what has been discussed in the previous para, this ground also does not hold good.
10. The third ground taken by the applicant is that in the show cause notice given to him along with a copy of the inquiry report, the proposed punishment had already been suggested and therefore his representation against the same had become a mere formality and therefore this had vitiated the whole process. In support of his argument he had cited the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Narula v. Union of India - OA No. 23.PB/2009 decided on 18.3.2010 while placing reliance on judgment dated 8.5.2008 of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in TA no. 63/2007 titled Mohinder Singh v. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority. However, we find that these judgments are distinguishable on facts and once the admission of the applicant was there, then it cannot be said that the mention of the punishment in the show cause notice had prejudiced the cause of the applicant.
11. The next ground taken by the applicant is that various past incidents of absence relating to him have been included in the charge-sheet just to prejudice the mind of the punishing authority whereas he had already been punished for those earlier and therefore this has prejudiced his cause in the present case. However, we find that the said period mentioned in the charge-sheet has also been mentioned in the final orders and therefore it is not as if the earlier periods of absence have been considered as the basis for the present punishment. However, these have been used as an example to show his incorrigible behaviour, whereas the punishment relates to the said period of absence between 7.3.2008 to 30.7.2010 which was mentioned in the present charge-sheet.
12. The next ground taken by the applicant is that he was not given any opportunity of hearing before the final order was passed. It is apparent that there has been proper application of mind in the present case which is different from other cases in which detailed reasoning is required to be given, since the present case has been dealt with on the basis of the clear and unconditional admission of guilt made by the applicant on 5.5.2010 Therefore, it is distinguishable from the facts of the case cited in the OA in respect of this ground i.e Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, JT 2006 (4) SC 376.
13. The applicant has also talked about being the sole bread winner for his family and his service with the respondents since 1984. This ground is more on the lines of a mercy plea and we do not find any grounds or jurisdiction to consider the same, specially in view of what has been stated in the preceding paras.
14. The next ground taken by the applicant is that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. In this case it cannot be said that the unauthorized absence of about 2 years and 4 months is a minor misconduct. In fact it is a major misconduct for which the punishment of removal is not disproportionate. In this respect an additional factor that has weighed with us is that the applicant did not give his correct address to his employer, even though it is his permanent home address given by him and during the course of inquiry also he gave another address which also turned out to be misleading and wrong, because the letter sent to the said new address also came back undelivered. Here it is interesting to note that the address from which the letters came back undelivered as mentioned in the documents enclosed with the reply of the respondents, is the same address given by him while filing this OA. It means that he was deliberately avoiding the service of any letter of his employer during his unauthorized absence, which actually compounds his misconduct. Therefore, we find that the punishment given is proportionate to the misconduct. However, as per law, it could not have been given retrospective effect. Therefore, this part of the said impugned order is quashed and set aside and consequently it will take effect from the date of issue of the punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority, who is also directed to take an appropriate decision as to how the intervening period and the period of absence is to be treated.
15. Consequently, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this OA has been found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed except that it will take effect from the date of issue of the punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority who is also directed to take an appropriate decision regarding how the intervening period and the period of absence is to be treated, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Alert