“Sympathy has no place in action against delinquent employee”

A technician was dismissed as he was a habitual absentee
Principles of natural justice were violated: High Court
New Delhi: Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, courts should not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee, the Supreme Court has held.
A Bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and V.S. Sirpurkar said: “The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Sinha said: “If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.”
In the instant case, Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, a technician, was dismissed from service on the ground that he was a habitual absentee from duty.
On a petition from him, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that principles of natural justice were violated since his explanation was not taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The present appeal by the Chairman and Managing Director of V.S.P. and others is directed against this judgment.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench pointed out that the very charge was that the petitioner was a habitual absentee from duty and his absence was continuous one without prior sanction and in violation of the standing orders.
The Bench noted that the employee in his explanation, in answer to the charge sheet, pleaded guilty admitting the charges.
In terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved, the Bench said and pointed out that it was on that premise the inquiry was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation that his mother was ill and that he could not come to the office.
The Bench said that judicial admissions could be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. “A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied [with] within the disciplinary proceedings,” the Bench said and upheld the dismissal.
Monday, Mar 10, 2008
Legal Correspondent