LexCHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL INDIA A LIMITED & ANR. versus MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHURI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 487 CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL INDIA A LIMITED & ANR. v. MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHURI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5762-63 of 2009) AUGUST 24, 2009 B [P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODl:iA, JJ.] ""' ~ CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: c Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Scope of - Employee removed from service on charges of overstaying sanctioned leave and absenting himself unauthorisedly - Reinstatement by High Court with back wages - Held : It is not open to High Court to examine findings recorded by Inquiry Officer, as a D f court of appeal and reach its own conclusions - In the instant case, in absence of any procedural il/egalitylirregu/arity in conducting of departmental proceedings, there is no scope to differ with conclusions arrived at by Inquiry Officer about proof of charges - However, keeping in with doctrine of E proportionality, power of judicia~ review can be exercised if the punishment awarded is grossly in excess to the fault - In the ~ instant case, punishment is not only unduly harsh but also )- grossly in excess to the a/legations - Accordingly, employers shall reinstate the employee forthwith but without any back F wages - Administrative Law - Doctrine of proportionality - Judicial Review - Service Law - Coal India Executives Conduct Discipline and appeal Rules, 1978 - r.29. SERVICE LAW COAL /NOIA EXECUTIVES CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE G ~ AND APPEAL RULES, 1978: r.29 - Misconduct - Employee overstaying sanctioned 487 H 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A leave and absenting himself unauthorisedly - Removal from service - Held: Punishment is grossly in excess of the charge established - Reinstatement without back wages would meet the ends of justice - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 8 Respondent No.1, a System Officer in the appellant Company, overstayed the sanctioned leave and absented himself unauthorisedly for six months. In the disciplinary inquiry he admitted the charges, but stated that his absence was due to the personal reasons which were beyond his control and could not be explained. The C Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that the charges were established. The disciplinary authority ordered removal of respondent No. 1 from service. In the writ petition, the single Judge of the High Court set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the employee but D without back wages. The Division Bench allowed the appeal of the employee for back wages and dismissed that of the employer challenging the order of reinstatement. Aggrieved, the employer filed the appeals. E Allowing the appeals in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions; and that the power of judicial F review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. In the instant case, the delinquent having admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer about the proof of c~arges. In the absence of any G procedural illegality or irregularity in conducting of the departmental enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no interference. [Para 18] (498-G-H; 499-A] H CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, COAL 489 INDIA LTD. v. MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHURI v' - r~ State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. Chitra VenkataRao A (1975) 2 sec 557, relied on. 1.2. The Division Bench of the High Court, like the single Judge fell into grave error in not adequately adverting to the fact that the charges were admitted by the delinquent unequivocally and unambiguously and, as 8 such, his misconduct was clearly established. Therefore, .... the view of the High Court cannot be concurred with . [Para 21] [500-C] 2.1. So far as the punishment is concerned, the c doctrine of proportionality is a well recognized concept of judicial review. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision .. maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is D -'( exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in access to the allegations cannot claim immunity, and remains ope
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.